Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,

"To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to the district of the Rhymney Valley Sewerage Board and to Warrington," presented by Dr. ADDISON.

Ordered, That Standing Order 193a be suspended, and that the Bill be read the first time. —[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 205.]

SAVINGS BANKS (IRELAND).

Return ordered, "containing the following Tables:

(I.) Table, arranged according to counties, showing for each Post Office Savings Bank in Ireland remaining open on the 31st day of December, 1918 (1) the number of accounts of depositors therein; and (2) the total amount, inclusive of interest, standing to the credit of those accounts on the 31st day of December of the years 1912 and 1918, respectively, with a summary showing the like particulars for each county and for all Ireland;
(II.) Table, arranged according to counties, showing for each Trustee Savings Bank in Ireland remaining open on the 20th. day of November, 1918 (1) the number of accounts of depositors therein; and (2) the total amount, inclusive of interest, standing to the credit of those accounts on the 20th day of November of the years 1912 and 1918, respectively, with a summary showing the like particulars for each county and for all Ireland;
334
(III.) Table for each county and for all Ireland showing (1) the number of depositors' accounts and the total amount of deposits in Post Office and Trustee Savings Banks combined on the dates given in Tables I. and II. in the years 1912 and 1918, respectively; (2) the percentage by which the total deposits so arrived at for 1918 exceeded their total for 1912; (3) the percentage by which the total rental dealt with under the Land Law (Ireland) Acts in the period from the 22nd day of August, 1912, to the 31st day of March, 1918, has been reduced for a first statutory term;
(IV.) Table showing the total amount of the deposits and private balances (exclusive of Government deposits and London accounts) in the Joint Stock Banks in Ireland on the 30th day of June in the years 1912 and 1918, respectively, and the percentage by which such deposits and balances on the 30th day of June, 1918, exceeded their amount on the 30th day of June, 1912 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 272, of Session 1913)."— [Mr. Archdale.]

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

AFGHANISTAN (NEGOTIATIONS WITH BOLSHEVISTS).

Colonel YATE: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can give any further information regarding the state of affairs in Afghanistan and the negotiations now being carried on between the Afghan Government and the Bolshevik authorities in Moscow; and whether any Afghan forces are now in occupation of territory in the tribal area on the British side of the North-West Frontier of India?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. An Afghan colonel who with a few Irregulars penetrated into Wana, in Waziristan, during the hostilities with Afghanistan, is understood to be practically detained with his men as hostages by the tribesmen owing to their dissatisfaction with the Afghans for making peace without obtaining an amnesty for them.

Colonel YATE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any news of the negotiations in Moscow between the Afghans and the Bolshevists?

Mr. MONTAGU: I am afraid I am not in a position to give any information at present, but perhaps the hon. and gallant Member would put a question down on another day.

CIVIL SERVICE (PROPORTIONATE PENSIONS).

Colonel YATE: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the recommendations of the Government of India on the subject of the proportionate pensions to be granted to the Civil Service in India in the event of the Government of India Bill becoming law have yet been received; if so, will he state what those proportionate pensions are to be, so as to enable both the Government of India and the officials concerned to make their arrangements in time; and, if not yet received, will he call for them to be submitted at once?

Mr. MONTAGU: My hon. and gallant Friend possibly has in mind the remarks of the Government of India published in Parliamentary Paper Cmd. 123, in which, however, they expressly say that they do not propose to make any general offer of proportionate pensions. I can add nothing to the answer given to him on the 2nd July.

OFFICERS' WAR GHATUITIES.

Mr. LEONARD LYLE: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he is aware that the war gratuity is now being paid to officers in India at the rate of 1s. l0d. to the rupee; whether those gratuities were mainly earned when the rupee was at 1s. 4d. or at 1s. 6d.; and whether, seeing that officers have been penalised because in many cases the authorities have been very late in paying their gratuities, and in many cases have note even paid them yet, he will take action in the matter?

Colonel YATE: 4.
asked on what grounds the war bonus and gratuities due to British officers of the Army in India are paid at the current rate of exchange while the bonus and gratuities due to the non-commissioned officers and men are paid at the fixed rate of 1s. 4d. to the rupee; and, considering that a soldier is a Soldier whether he be officer or man, if he will direct all war bonuses and gratuities to be paid in India at the fixed rate of 1s. 4d?

Mr. MONTAGU: After communicating with the Government of India, I have decided that the payments of war gratuity to the officers shall be readjusted at 1s. 4d. to the rupee. The ruling does not apply to the Army of Occupation bonus.

CIVIL SERVICES (LEAVE, PAY AND PENSIONS).

Colonel YATE: 5.
asked the Secretary of India if he has yet come to any decision regarding the leave, pension, and pay of the Indian Civil Services?

Mr. MONTAGU: New rates of pay for the Imperial branch of the Indian Police, the Public Works Department, and the Forest Service have been sanctioned. The improvement of the general civil pensions and the Indian Civil Service annuities have also been settled.
As regards Indian Civil Service annuities, I have approved the retention of the present uniform rate of £1,000, but the annuity deductions will, with effect from 1st April last, be founded for the benefit of the officer. I have also approved certain improvements in the scale of invalid annuities.
In regard to the pensions of the ordinary Civil Services other than the Indian Civil Service, I have accepted proposals under which officers concerned will be eligible on certain conditions for retirement after twenty-five years' service on a pension of Rs.3,000. rising by Rs.200 per annum for each additional year of service up to Rs.6,000 for thirty years. Additional pensions may be earned in certain high appointments up to a maximum of Rs. 1,500 for five years' service in some and Rs.2,500 in others. These benefits will be applicable to officers who retired on or after 23rd July, 1913, but arrears will be admissible only from 1st April, 1919.
Considerable progress has been made towards a decision on questions of leave and the pay of the other services, and I hope that a definite announcement will be made very soon.

Colonel YATE: Does that mean that members of the Indian Civil Service will not be able to retire till they have completed their twenty-five years' service?

Mr. MONTAGU: There is no alteration in the term of retirement. The only difference with regard to the Indian Civil Service is that their contributions to-
wards their annuity will be funded to provide them with an extra annuity over and above the £l,000.

Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of giving time pensions up to twenty-five years' service Why is it necessary that a man must remain for twenty-five years' service or else go off with no pension whatever?

Mr. MONTAGU: I do not think I can ask my Council to reconsider the question again. This is the outcome of careful consideration of the proposals made by the Public Services Commission in 1915.

Colonel YATE: Do not present circumstances necessitate a further reconsideration of this matter?

PUNJAB RIOTS.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for India how the Punjab Inquiry Commission is supposed to deal with the cases of those prisoners tried in batches by Summary Courts when no evidence favourable to accused was recorded?

Mr. MONTAGU: I have every confidence that sufficient evidence will be forthcoming to enable the Committee to discharge satisfactorily the task they have undertaken, which is to investigate the recent disturbances, their causes, and the measures taken to cope with them.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Do I understand from that that they are not going to reconsider the sentences passed upon the various offenders?

Mr. MONTAGU: They are not a body for the revision of particular sentences. As my hon. and gallant Friend is probably aware, the sentences which he has in mind are being, and I think have been, completely reviewed by a special tribunal appointed, consisting of one European and one Indian judge.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: They have only dealt with them, as I understand, in the way of reduction of sentences, and have not considered the justification of the condemnations themselves?

Mr. MONTAGU: It is not proposed to do anything further in the revision of sentences unless that is recommended by Lord Hunter's Committee, but that Committee would not in itself revise them.

Colonel YATE: Will the Committee revising these sentences be empowered to increase the sentences as well as to decrease them?

Mr. MONTAGU: I think I had better refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the speech made by the Home Member in the Viceroy's Legislative Council, but I have not yet heard any suggestion that the sentences passed in the Punjab were not sufficiently severe.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: It is distinctly understood then that Lord Hunter's Committee can recommend that these sentences be reviewed entirely?

Mr. MONTAGU: Oh, yes.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 7.
asked the Secretary for India whether he is aware that the Punjab methods of dealing with political suspects are causing racial hate in India; and what steps he proposes to take to cause a change of method in the Punjab?

Mr. MONTAGU: I really do not know what is in my hon. and gallant Friend's mind. If he has any definite charge to make, I will attend to it; or any proposal to make I will consider it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I suppose he is aware that racial hate has been caused by the. operations in the, Punjab, but would it not be desirable to support the Governor in his measures for alleviating the situation in the Punjab against the Simla Government which is pressing on the old system of Sir Michael O'Dwyer?

Mr. MONTAGU: This is the first indication I have had from any source whatsoever that there is any difference of opinion between the Government of the Punjab and the Government of India. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman has any information which I do not possess, perhaps he will let mo have it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Perhaps it would be possible for my right hon. Friend to make inquiries from Sir Edward Mac-lagan on this point, because it is of vital importance that the Governor of the Punjab, who is in touch with the conditions there, should have the freest possible hand in dealing with this problem?

Mr. MONTAGU: The hon. and gallant Member is aware that a Committee is-sitting to inquire into these matters, and I
do not propose to interfere with the discretion and the responsibilities of the Government of India.

Colonel YATE: Is it not a fact that this racial hatred is entirely due to the action of the agitators in India?

Mr. MONTAGU: I do not propose to express any opinion, and I hope the House will not express any opinion, upon matters which are now, at this moment, being investigated by a Committee appointed for the purpose.

KURDISTAN (MURDER OF BRITISH OFFICERS).

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the recent murder of the British political officer at Mosul and another British officer by a band of Kurds was a sporadic outbreak, or whether it was part of a general rising in Eastern Kurdistan; whether reinforcements have been pushed up into Kurdistan; and whether he can make a general statement as to the situation in Kurdistan?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. An, official announcement regarding this regrettable incident appeared in the Press this morning. The disturbance appears to have been a purely local one, and, while there are no signs at present of its spreading, the local authorities are taking the necessary steps to meet any situation which may arise.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Could my right hon. Friend inform me whether in future any question about Mesopotamia should be addressed to the India Office or the War Office? Is the War Office in authority or the India Office?

Mr. FORSTER: There may be questions which are appropriate to the War Office and others which are appropriate to the India Office. If my hon. and gallant Friend will put down his questions either to me or to my right hon. Friend he is sure to get an answer.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: When may we have some expression of policy, either from the War Office or the India Office or others concerned, on this -question of Kurdistan and of our commitments there?

Mr. FORSTER: I think the Secretary of State for War replied to a similar question yesterday.

BURMA RICE HARVEST.

Mr. SITCH: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for India, with reference to his statement that it is hoped it may be found possible shortly to dispense with Government control of rice in Burma, whether he is aware that Mr. Mant, Revenue member of the Indian Government, has stated in the Viceregal Legislature that control will probably be maintained until the next harvest is available; whether, if control is maintained, he will direct that, besides the maximum price fixed by the Government, the Government will also fix a minimum price for purchases from the cultivators, such minimum price to cover cost of production, and prevent the exploitation of native cultivators; and whether he will also direct that the maximum price be fixed by the Government after consultation with the representatives of the cultivators?

Mr. MONTAGU: I am aware of the statement made by Mr. Mant. The Burma rice harvest is gathered during November, December, and January. If it should prove necessary to control the new crop, the hon. Member's suggestions will be considered,

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

H.M.S. "HOOD" (COST).

Mr. LAMBERT: 11.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the total cost of the "Hood"; and what sum hat been paid to contractors for breaking the contract for the building of similar ships?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Long): The estimated finished cost of the "Hood," excluding guns, ammunition, and stores, is £5,025,000. Nothing has been paid to contractors for breaking the contract for the building of similar ships.

Mr. LAMBERT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the total cost of the "Hood," including guns?

Mr. LONG: I cannot say that, of course, without notice.

Mr. LAMBERT: I have asked for it.

NAVAL DEFENCE IN PACIFIC (LORD JELLICOE'S REPORT).

Commander Viscount CURZON: 12.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether Lord Jellicoe's Report upon the question of naval defence in the Pacific will be circulated to the Members of the House of Commons at an early date?

Mr. LONG: The Report in question is addressed to the Commonwealth Government, and not to the Admiralty. It will certainly not be possible to publish the whole of the Report, as it necessarily contains references to strategic considerations which cannot be disclosed. I will ascertain, however, what portions of it, If any, the Commonwealth Government are publishing, in order that similar information may be given to this House.

OFFICERS' UNIFORM.

Viscount CURZON: 13.
asked whether the Admiralty have come to any final decision with reference to the uniform to be worn by officers of the Royal Navy; and whether it is the intention of the Admiralty to dispense with full dress?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Full dress need not be provided until further orders, except by officers attending His Majesty's Levees at home. On all other occasions of ceremony for which full dress was prescribed, frock coat with epaulettes will be worn in lieu for the present.
The undress tail coat is no longer a compulsory article of uniform, the mess jacket with epaulettes being worn in lieu.
Other alterations have been made in matters of detail with a view to simplifying the uniform and reducing the cost involved in changes of rank.
Orders regarding the approved changes generally have been issued, and officers are required to provide themselves with all types of uniform, as now approved, by 1st February, 1920.

ATLANTIC FLEET.

Viscount CURZON: 17.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many capital ships compose the Atlantic Fleet; and how many Flag officers are employed in that force?

Mr. LONG: The answer to the first part of the hon. and gallant Member's question is fourteen; and to the second part, six.

"KIL" BOATS AND MOTOR LAUNCHES.

Mr. HOUSTON: 19.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the total cost to the nation of the sixty odd vessels of the "Kil" type lying in Southampton Water, and what he proposes to do with them; and whether he can state the total cost to the nation of the 500, or thereabouts, M.L. motor launches lying in the Hamble River, and what he proposes to do with them?

Mr. LONG: In regard to the first part of the question, the cost of each of this class was approximately £42,600, exclusive of guns. There are now fifty-two "Kil" boats in Southampton Water, and, as stated in reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for the Central Division of Kingston-upon-Hull on Wednesday last, proposals are under consideration for utilising such of these boats as are surplus to naval requirements for commercial purposes. With regard to motor launches, the approximate cost of each boat is £8,000, exclusive of guns; and, as stated in reply to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Dorset on the 27th October last, some 100 boats of this class have already been sold, and arrangements are actively proceeding for the disposal of such of the remainder as are not required for naval purposes.

Mr. HOUSTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman, with a view to greater accuracy, have these vessels recounted; is he aware that they were of very little use during the War, and that they entail a very serious loss to the nation; and can he state whether the £8,000 for these motor boats was the price paid for them in America, to which has to be added the cost of transport and alterations on this side?

Mr. LONG: In answer to my hon. Friend's further statements, some of the information obviously I must obtain, but I have -no reason to doubt that my figures are correct. As to whether these vessels were of any use during the War, I do not know whether the reference is to the first or the second part of the question.

Mr. HOUSTON: The second part.

Mr. LONG: I think that is a statement which requires to be qualified It is quite possible that my hon. Friend may have counted these boats and arrived at a different conclusion from that to which I
have arrived. It is just possible the explanation is that they have been counted on different days.

Mr. HOUSTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman count them himself, as I did last Saturday?

Mr. LONG: No, Sir; I have a great deal more important work to do.

DISABLEMENT PENSIONS.

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: 22.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty if the scale of disablement pensions which came into force in September, 1919, applies to the Army and Air Force only, or does it also apply to the equivalent ratings in the Navy and Marines; and, if the scale is not applicable to the Navy and Marines, how are the disablement pensions assessed in their case?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Colonel Sir James Craig): I have been asked to reply to this question. The total disablement rate of pension for seamen and Marines has been increased from 27s. 6d. and bonus to 40s., as in the case of soldiers and airmen of private's rank. I would remind the hon. Member that the Order in Council regulating the disablement pensions of seamen and Marines does not provide a scale of pension according to rank, but authorises certain additions for length of service, good conduct badges, etc., as specified in Regulation 1 (4). The increase in the rate of disablement pensions does not affect these additions.

OIL CRAFT.

Viscount CURZON: 21.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many oil tankers the Admiralty now have for disposal; how it is proposed that they should be disposed of; and is it intended to retain or build any such ships for use with the Fleet in future?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Six oil craft employed with the Fleet are now available for disposal, and six oversea tankers will be available after March next.
As regards the mode of disposal, oil tankers will be placed in the hands of the Shipping Controller, and oil barges in the hands of the Small Craft Disposal Board of the Ministry of Munitions.
The Admiralty will require oil craft for attendance on the Fleet, and will retain
oversea tankers for replenishment of stocks. There is no necessity, and, therefore, no intention, at present to build oil craft of any kind for the use of the Fleet.

MESSING ARRANGEMENTS, DEVONPORT.

Mr. R. YOUNG: 23.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is. aware that dissatisfaction still exists at Devonport in relation to the messing arrangements for those employed in the Navy; that they are not equal in suitability to the arrangements which exist at Chatham and Portsmouth; whether in this connection engine-room artificers at Devonport have cause to complain of the arrangements made for them; and, if so, what action he proposes to take?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I assume my hon. Friend is referring to the messing accommodation at the Royal Naval Barracks, Devonport. If so, a report shall be forthwith obtained. If that is not the accommodation he has in mind, perhaps he will let me know.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

BRITISH NAVAL CASUALTIES.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 14.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what have been the casualties to date, in men and material, suffered by the Royal Navy in operations against the Russo-German forces under Colonel Bermondt, General von Eberhardt, and other successors of General von der Goltz, as distinct from casualties suffered in operations against the Soviet forces; whether he is aware that Colonel Bermondt claims to be acting for Admiral Koltchak; whether the clearest-possible instructions have been given to our naval officers in the Baltic in view of the extreme delicacy and difficulty of their position; and whether ships going to or sailing from German ports in the Baltic are being stopped or only those attempting to trade with Soviet ports?

Mr. LONG: The answer to the first part of the hon. and gallant Member's question is one officer wounded, nine men killed, and four wounded. Small material damage has been sustained to the upper deck of one of our light cruisers, details of which, however, have not yet been received.
The reply to the second part of the question is in the affirmative; but Colonel Bermondt has been repudiated by General Yudenitch, who has declared him a traitor.
The reply to the third part of the question is in the affirmative.
As regards the last part of the question, all German vessels trading in the Baltic, whether in neutral interests or not, are stopped unless they have obtained permission previously from the Allied Armistice Commission.

Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware whether these men were killed and wounded by German or Russian artillery?

Mr. LONG: I cannot answer for the particular gun from which the shell came. They wore killed in action like other men doing their duty, and died most gallantly.

Mr. JAMES BROWN: 15.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what number of ships have been lost since the Armistice in operations in the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea, and at Archangel and Murmansk?

Mr. LONG: The information asked foils as follows:
In the Baltic Sea—

One Light Cruiser.
Two Destroyers.
Two Mine-sweepers.
One Submarine, and
Three Coastal Motor Boats.

No ships have been lost since the Armistice in operations in the Black Sea.
At Archangel and Murmansk—

Two Mine-sweepers, and
Two Monitors.

GENERAL DENIKIN AND COLONEL BERMONDT.

Mr. SWAN: 33.
asked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether General Denikin has formally repudiated all acquiescence in Colonel Bermondt's attack on Latvia; and whether Colonel Bermondt is in constant wireless communication with General Denikin?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): I have no information on either subject.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has the hon. Gentleman observed the statement in the Continental Press that Colonel Bermondt is acting in close conjunction with our enemies, and may we have some statement of the facts of the case—denial or otherwise?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I do not feel called upon to take notice of everything of the kind that appears in the Press.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 34.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Colonel Bermondt was formerly acting as a subordinate to General Denikin, K.C.B.; and whether he has official knowledge that he is still in relations with that general?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Colonel Bermondt has, so far as I am aware, never been under the orders of General Denikin. The answer to the second part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question is in the negative.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would it not be possible to communicate with General Denikin and find out whether he is in communication with Colonel Bermondt, seeing that the Latter is a commander of troops fighting against our friends?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: There is not the slightest foundation that that is so, according to the information we have.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would it not be possible to send a wire to General Denikin urging him, in view of the material support we give—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]—that he should not co-operate with Colonel Bermondt, seeing his troops are firing on our Navy?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The hon, and gallant Member will have seen that General Denikin has repudiated Colonel Bermondt.

Mr. BILLING: Is there any obligation on the part of the Treasury Bench to answer any questions put on behalf of those who deserted us?

PETROGRAD (ARREST OF MERCHANT SHIP).

Lieut. - Colonel MALONE: 39.
asked whether merchant ships (other than British ships) trading to and from Petrograd or other ports held by the Soviet Government have been arrested by British warships; if so, whether His Majesty's Government have now decided to consider the Soviet Republic of Russia as a belligerent State, or, if not, if he will state under what principles of international jurisprudence the commanding officers of these ships receive their authority?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: One Swedish ship sailing from Petrograd was recently
intercepted by His Majesty's Naval Forces in the Baltic. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. The Allied Naval Forces in the Baltic are applying the measures in question in accordance with instructions which have been issued under the authority of the Supreme Council in Paris, and which, in the opinion of the Allied Governments, are not contrary to any principle of international jurisprudence.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Will my right hon. Friend publish a copy of those instructions, so that shipowners may know what regulations their ships are sailing under?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I think that is more properly a question for the Admiralty. I could not say offhand whether that will be done or not.

DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATIVES (ESTHONIA, LATVIA AND LITHUANIA).

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: 40.
asked whether indications of British policy are conveyed to the Governments of Finland, Esthonia, Latvia, and Lithuania through the accredited diplomatic representatives or through the Baltic Military Mission; whether instructions are sent direct from the War Office and Foreign Office to these persons; and, if so, what steps are taken to ensure co-ordination?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The views of His Majesty's Government in regard to the Baltic States are conveyed to the Provisional Governments of Esthonia, Latvia, and Lithuania through the head of the British Mission to the Baltic States. In the case of the Government of Finland, His Majesty's representative at Helsingfors is the channel of communication.
As regards the second part of the question, such instructions are sent direct from the Foreign Office to the Commissioner. The War Office communicate direct with the head of the Military Mission on matters affecting local military questions.
In answer to the third part of the question, I may state that the head of the Diplomatic Mission and the head of the Military Mission work in the closest co-operation.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does the question of a separate peace come under the heading of local military questions?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I should say obviously not.

FINLAND.

Mr. SWAN: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Entente is putting pressure on Finland to take active operations against Soviet Russia, and, if not, whether he will issue an official denial of this?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: There is no truth in the report to which the hon. Member refers. This denial was given to the hon. and gallant Member for New-castle-under-Lyme on 30th October, and should be sufficient.

RUSSIAN EXPEDITIONS (EXPENDITURE).

Mr. J. BROWN: 63.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the statement of expenditure in connection with Russian expeditions includes the cost of separation allowances to the dependants of menserving on those expeditions?

Mr. FORSTER: The answer is in the affirmative.

Mr. BROWN: 64.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the statement of cost of the Russian expeditions since the Armistice includes all liabilities incurred for shipping and transport or is merely a statement of the cash payments made to 31st October?

Mr. FORSTER: The statement includes an estimate of all liabilities incurred for shipping and transport up to 31st October, and is not merely a statement of the cash payments made to that date.

DRIFTERS (RECONDITIONING).

Sir HENRY COWAN: 16.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the action of the naval authorities in discontinuing the reconditioning of drifters at the ports of Peterhead and Fraserburgh; whether vessels owned at these and other Scottish ports are being sent to English dockyards for reconditioning; whether he is aware that additional expense is incurred by this procedure, coal unnecessarily consumed, and large numbers of Scotsmen who have served their country during the War thrown out of employment; and, having regard to these circumstances, what steps, he proposes to take in the matter?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, Sir. Vessels owned at the two ports mentioned and other Scottish ports have been sent to the Royal dockyards in the South for reconditioning. I am assured that the cost involved in this transfer is counterbalanced by the saving in hire that would be incurred by the delayed reconditioning at the Scottish ports referred to, and by the saving in connection, with the maintenance of a staff of naval and technical officers at these ports if the reconditioning work were undertaken there. As regards the unemployment of Scotsmen referred to, I am advised that the ordinary work on vessels of the fishing fleet, as in pre-war days, together with the additional work of reconditioning where owners of fishing craft have accepted lump sum settlements, should help to employ the firms in each of the ports mentioned.

Sir H. COWAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether this new-born zeal for economy now pervades all Departments of the Admiralty or is confined to questions connected with Scotland?

Dr. MACNAMARA: This particular question is not altogether a matter of economy. It is distributing the work as well as we can according to the necessities of the case.

Sir H. COWAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it worth while to throw men out of employment in Scotland in order to provide employment in England?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply, and, in any case, I observe that Fraserburgh has twelve drifters and Peterhead one drifter reconditioning now.

NAVY AND ARMY CANTEENS (DISCHARGED SOLDIERS).

Mr. R. YOUNG: 24.
asked the Minister of Labour the reason why discharged soldiers, some of whom have families to maintain, are being discharged from the Navy and Army canteens, Royal Air Force camps, Kidbrooke, in favour of women from eighteen to twenty-five years of age; whether the work is suitable for women; whether the discharged soldiers who are being dispensed with will be thrown upon the country's unemployment fund; and whether he will use his influence to get such discharges cancelled in the interests of the ex-soldiers and of national economy?

Mr. FORSTER: I have been asked to reply to this question. I am informed that on the recommendation of the Officer Commanding, Kidbrooke Camp, four male employés of the Navy and Army Canteen Board are being replaced by women, for whom the work is considered entirely suitable. The men were civilians, and not ex-soldiers. The manager, who is a discharged soldier, is being retained. The latter part of the question, therefore, does, not arise.

PASSPORTS FOR AMERICA.

Mr. D. GRAHAM: 32.
asked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs; whether he is aware that the British Consul in Chicago, United States of America, is refusing passports to British; subjects desiring to get home on the ground that they had failed to offer their services as soldiers to this country during the War; and whether, in so doing, he is acting in, accordance with instructions sent from this-country?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have no information to that effect, but am making immediate inquiries.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS (HEAD -QUARTERS).

Mr. LUNN: 35.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Swiss Government was consulted and. gave its consent before Geneva was named in the Covenant as the seat of the League of Nations; whether arrangements have-been made for the offices of the secretariat at Geneva; how much money, if any, has been expended in this way or in other preliminary expenses of the secretariat; whether funds are provided for this purpose in tile Estimates adopted by this House, and, if so, to what amount; and how much is expected to be the British expenditure in a normal year on the secretariat of the League of Nations?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: As regards the first part of the question, the Swiss Minister in Part informed the President of the Peace Conference in an official note on 22nd March that the Swiss Government would warmly welcome the establishment of the League on Swiss; territory.
The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative, so that that part relating to what money has been expended in this manner does not arise.
In accordance with a Resolution of the Organisation Committee of the League of Nations (a body appointed by a Plenary Session of the Peace Conference), the Acting Secretary-General was authorised to incur certain preliminary expenditure in connection with the provisional organisation of the secretariat. I understand that an official statement of expenses will be published in due course.
In the Supplementary Estimates 1919/20, paragraph 10, under "Diplomatic and Consular Services," there is a Vote K/3 League of Nations E24,000.
This is all that it is expected will be asked of His Majesty's Government as their share of the expenses in the period ending 31st March, 1920. No estimate has yet been made regarding the probable expenditure after 1st April, 1920.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: When will this Vote be put down for discussion?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I do not know. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put that question to the Leader of the House?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

UNEMPLOYED WORKMEN.

Mr. LAMBERT: 26.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, as the labour shortage for the building of houses is acute, he could arrange that instead of unemployment donation work should be found for the unemployed workmen?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir R. Horne): I agree with the suggestions contained in the question of the right hon. Gentleman. The position in the building trade is that there is at present a general shortage of bricklayers, carpenters, and joiners, and a general surplus of most other grades of building labour; but this is not true of every locality. I can assure my right hon. Friend that the Employment Exchanges are making every effort to secure that all unemployed labour is offered for any jobs for which they are suitable.

DEBATE (HOUSE OF COMMONS).

Mr. ATKEY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the dissatisfac-
tion throughout the country owing to the difficulties and delays incidental to the provision of houses under the Housing Act, and, in particular, that many authorities are unable to raise the necessary capital and do not approve of subsidising tenants of houses costing from £800 to £l,000 each, either from local or national taxation; and will he give the House of Commons an early opportunity of discussing the present situation in order to ascertain whether amending legislation should be introduced with the object of providing the accommodation so urgently needed?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I will consider the suggestion of the hon. Member that an opportunity should be given to the House to discuss the present position of the housing scheme. I am aware that the provision of houses on an unprecedented scale at the present time is attended by numerous difficulties. Many of these difficulties have already been overcome, and I am glad to say that many of the local authorities are making substantial progress in the carrying out of schemes. The question whether further measures can be taken to accelerate the provision of housing accommodation is receiving consideration.

Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the difficulty in regard to housing is profiteering in building material, and will he take some stops to put cement, bricks and building essentials at prices which will enable houses to be built more economically?

Mr. BONARLAW: That is one of the difficulties, but there are others connected with labour. The Government are now considering whether or not it is possible to take any further steps to secure the more expeditious building of these houses.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: Considering the immense urgency of this question, particularly in the rural districts, where the situation is really tragic, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the House to sit on Friday?

Mr. BONAR LAW: In reply to my Noble Friend's question, as I have already stated, the Government are now considering what further steps should be taken. We should be glad to have a discussion, but the Government are not in a position yet to announce their steps, and surely
under the circumstances, it would be better to wait until the Government can state what further steps can be taken.

Lord R. CECIL: Can we have a discussion reasonably soon, as the matter is very urgent? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]

Mr. BONAR LAW: I quite realise that, and I notice that the whole House does. I do not know whether it will be possible next week, but if it be, I will arrange a day for it.

Mr. HOHLER: Has the Minister of Health issued Regulations for enabling these people to obtain materials for that purpose under the Act dealing with these matters?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think my hon. and learned Friend expects me to reply to that question, and he had better put it to the Minister of Health.

Colonel ASHLEY: Are the Government considering any means whereby the help of private individuals can be enlisted, in view of the fact that private individuals built all the houses in the past?

Mr. BONAR LAW: That is precisely the form to which the consideration of the Government is now being given.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Does that mean the repeal of a portion of the 1909–10 Finance Act, which is undoubtedly preventing building by private means?

Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. Friend knows that a Committee is sitting on that question.

Mr. O'GRADY: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that certain Government Departments have considerable supplies of bricks, cement and timber, and can the Government throw that upon tie market?

Mr. BONAR LAW: That is being done and that is within our power.

LIVERPOOL DOCKS (CONGESTION).

Mr. HOUSTON: 20.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware of the great congestion which prevails in the Liverpool docks and that at times as many as thirty inward steamers have been waiting for considerable periods for discharging berths; whether he has received repre-
sentations from the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board to the effect that this congestion is in a measure due to vessels in, or which 'have been in, Government service being sent to the port of Liverpool to be repaired and reconditioned; whether he is aware that Liverpool has always been a commercial port and a great centre for distribution; and whether he can arrange for these Government vessels to be transferred to other ports where there is not the same congestion and so afford greater accommodation at Liverpool for the discharge of vessels bringing inward cargoes of food and other commodities and thereby relieve congestion?

Dr MACNAMARA: The Admiralty has received representations from the Mersey Dock and Harbour Board on this subject, and they 'have been informed that there is no immediate prospect of sending further vessels to Liverpool to be reconditioned. There are at present three armed merchant cruisers, thirty-two trawlers and drifters, and two salvage vessels being reconditioned at Liverpool. They are all in course of completion and, I am afraid, cannot be transferred to other ports.

Mr. HOUSTON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the presence of these boats, already mentioned, is hampering the docks and that quite recently a steamer that arrived at Liverpool occupied thirty-four days before she could obtain a berth to discharge, while a similar steamer with the same kind of cargo only occupied six day's at Antwerp, and is not this reducing the efficiency of the steamers that serve Liverpool and add very largely to the cost of food and other commodities?

Dr. MACNAMARA: That may very well be. I will take it that it is so from my hon. Friend. But the reconditioning of the trawlers as rapidly as possible is a very urgent necessity from the point of view of the fishing industry.

Mr. HOUSTON: There is a great demand for food.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I agree.

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: 25.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that considerable dissatisfaction at
present exists amongst workmen in Lanarkshire at the manner in which claimants for out-of-work benefit are treated by the chairman, of the Mother-well Court of Referees; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the whole matter in the district affected?

Sir R. HORNE: No, Sir. I have no reason to suppose that Mr. Thomson, chairman of the Motherwell Court of Referees, performs his duties otherwise than impartially and efficiently.

Mr. GRAHAM: Is there not a case for inquiry?

Sir R. HORNE: I am constantly in touch with the local officers, and I do not think there is any need for any special inquiry.

Lieut. - Colonel Sir SAMUEL HOARE: 55.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is intended to continue the present system of unemployment donation; and, if not, in what way it is proposed to modify it?

Sir R. HORNE: I have been asked to reply to this question. The proposals of the Government on this matter will, I hope, be laid before the House next week.

Sir S. HOARE: Do I understand that the House will then have an opportunity of debating this question, in fulfilment of the pledge given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Sir R. HORNE: I think my hon. Friend had better wait until he hears the statement. Undoubtedly any pledge given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be fulfilled.

Sir S. HOARE: But how is the House to express its opinion on the proposals?

Sir R. HORNE: I think after my hon. Friend has heard the statement he can raise the question. I repeat that any pledge given by my right hon. Friend will be fulfilled.

Sir F. BANBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only about ten days ago, in response to a question I put, I got an assurance that when any proposal was made with regard to the unemployment dole there should be a full debate in the House?

Sir R. HORNE: Undoubtedly before any proposals are carried out any assurance given will be fulfilled.

CIVIL LIABILITIES (APPRENTICES).

Mr. DONALD: 27.
asked the Minister of Labour the amount of money paid by the Government to apprentices in England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales under the heading of Military Service (Civil Liabilities) Department for tools, etc.?

Sir R. HORNE: No statistics are available in the Civil Liabilities Department of grants made for tools to apprentices, as distinct from other ex-Service men.

Mr. DONALD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is great dissatisfaction with the disbursement of money in some of these cases? I could tell the right hon. Gentleman of one extremely hard case where the apprentice volunteered and went through the War for four and a-half years, and has neither father nor mother. Will the right hon. Gentleman give this case favourable consideration?

Sir R. HORNE: I shall be very glad to look into the case to which my hon. Friend refers. I have personally been going into the whole question of the administration of civil liabilities in connection with tools, and I hope it will be more satisfactory in the future.

APPRENTICESHIP.

Mr. DONALD: 28.
asked the Minister of Labour the amount of money paid up to the present by the Government to employers of labour in England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales towards increases to apprentices who had their period of apprenticeship broken during the War?

Sir R. HORNE: The total amount so paid up to 31st October, 1919, was £85,873. The figures for the four countries separately are not available.

Mr. BILLING: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman will do everything in his power to re-establish the apprenticeship system in this country on pre-war basis; and is he aware that it was only because of that system that British trade has the name it has throughout the world?

Sir R. HORNE: The Ministry of Labour is doing everything in its power to encourage apprenticeship.

RETAIL BUSINESSES (LICENCES).

Mr. BRIANT: 29.
asked the Minister of Labour if the licensing of retail businesses can now be dispensed with, as the system hinders the return to normal business conditions and also necessitates the employment of a staff which involves a considerable cost to the State?

Sir R. HORNE: This matter is at present under consideration, and I hope a decision will be reached very shortly.

FLAXDRESSERS' AND LINEN WORKERS, BELFAST.

Mr. THOMAS BURN: 30.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he has received a resolution from the Belfast Flax-dressers' and Linen Workers' Trade Union alleging that the flax-dressers of Johnstone and Kilbirnie are paid 63s. 6d. for a forty-seven-hour week and that textile workers in England are paid on a forty-eight-hour week, and urging that; flaxdressers and textile workers in Ireland should be put upon a similar basis as to wages and hours; and what action he proposes to take in respect of this resolution?

Sir R. HORNE: I have received the resolution to which reference is made, and inquiries are being made into the matter.

Mr. DONALD: Has the right hon. Gentleman had an appeal from a Court of Inquiry into the circumstances at Belfast to set up a branch of the Industrial Council there, whereby these questions in dispute can be settled favourably both to employers and workmen?

Sir R. HORNE: I am not cognisant, at the moment, of the particular circumstances of Belfast, but if it is sought to set up a Joint Industrial Council I have not the slightest doubt but that it will be encouraged in every possible way.

Mr. DEVLIN: Does not the whole thing arise from the fact that these workmen are from this country, instead of from their own country?

Sir R. HORNE: I am not aware of that fact.

DISABLED MEN (TRAINING).

Mr. HAYDAY: 31.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of a resolution passed by the Shepherd's Bush Local Employment Committee regarding the delay in dealing with the training of disabled men; whether he is aware that since the 1st of August last the Shepherd's Bush Committee have submitted 171 candidates for training, and that up to date only two of this number have commenced; and whether action will be taken to remove the cause of this delay?

Sir R. HORNE: I am aware of the resolution in question, and the facts appear to be as stated. The cause of the delay is the insufficiency of training accommodation. Every effort has been, and is being, made to increase as rapidly as possible the facilities available for training disabled men.

Oral Answers to Questions — BELGRADE.

OCCUPATION BY AUSTRIA.

Lieut. - Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: 36.
asked if, prior to the commencement of War in 1914 and subsequent to the delivery of Austria's ultimatum to Serbia, Viscount Grey, the then Secretary of State, made a proposal that Austria should occupy Belgrade and the neighbourhood and hold it until she had received complete satisfaction and await the results of the efforts of the Great Powers to mediate; if Austria delayed even an acknowledgment of this proposal until 1st August, taking steps in the meantime that must necessarily precipitate war; and if he will state on what grounds knowledge of these proposals of Great Britain to preserve peace and their rejection by the Central Powers have been withheld from the public, in view of the evidence they afford of the responsibility of Germany and Austria for the outbreak of war?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: On 29th July Sir Edward Grey proposed that it might be possible to bring some mediation into existence if Austria, while saying that she must hold Belgrade and some Serbian territory until she had complete satisfaction from Serbia, stated that she would not advance further pending an effort of the Powers to mediate between her and Russia. This proposal was made to Prince Lichnowsky on 29th July and
communicated by him to the German Government; it was also communicated to Sir Edward Goschen and to Sir George Buchanan; it was communicated by the German Government to the, Austrian Government; no answer was received from Austria until 1st August. The whole correspondence dealing with the matter, so far as it was in possession of the British Government, was included in the White Paper which was laid before the House on the outbreak of war on 4th August, 1914, and all available information from other sources was included in the "Collected Diplomatic Documents, relating to the Outbreak of the European War," published by the Stationery Office in 1915. There is no ground, therefore, of any kind for the suggestion that "knowledge of these proposals of Great Britain to preserve peace and their rejection by the Central Powers" have been withheld from the public.

ASIA MINOR (ITALIAN MILITARY GARRISONS).

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: 37.
asked whether there are now any Italian military garrisons on the mainland of Asia Minor; and, if so, in what towns?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: There are Italian military garrisons at a number of towns in S.W. Asia Minor. But I should not like to commit myself to a more precise statement as to their numbers or identity.

TREBIZOND (MILITARY REPRE SENTATIVES).

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: 38.
asked whether there are any British or Allied civil or military representatives in Trebizond; and whether there is any Allied naval support at Trebizond?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I believe that there is at Trebizond a British military control officer and a representative of the French High Commissioner. As the hon. and gallant Member is no doubt aware, the roadstead at Trebizond is not one where vessels can he permanently.

VEGETABLE OILS (RESTRICTIVE DUTIES).

Lieut.-Commander KEN WORTHY: 42.
asked whether the present restrictive
duties on the export of raw materials for vegetable oils will be applied to the mandatory areas granted to this country under the covenant of the League of Nations; if so, whether this House will be given an opportunity of discussing this departure from the historic policy of Great Britain of recognising the rights of native races to sell their produce in the open markets of the world; whether the League of Nations aspect of this question has been fully considered; and whether an appeal by dissatisfied producers in these mandatory areas to the Council of the League of Nations will be permitted by His Majesty's Government?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut.-Colonel Amery): The hon. Member is incorrect in his assumption that there are restrictive duties on the export of the raw material for vegetable oils generally, but I presume he is referring to the special case of palm kernels exported from the West African Colonies, on which product there is a differential export duty of £2 a ton on kernels exported outside the Empire. In any case, the answer to the first part of his question is in the negative; the rest consequently does not arise.

SOUTH AFRICAN NATIVES (UNION- CASTLE LINER).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 43.
asked whether four South African natives were recently turned out of their cabin and forcibly removed from a Union-Castle boat, on which they had booked their passage, by other passengers; if so, why they were not protected from this outrage; and whether any steps have been taken to compensate them for the loss of their luggage and delay, and to find them some passage to South Africa where they will be safe from violence and race hatred?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Consett on the 30th October. The unfortunate occurrence was quite unforseen and in the circumstances no steps to guard against it appear to have been practicable. On the question of compensation I am unable to add anything to my previous answer. I understand that passages will be found in an early boat.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Do I under stand that there is no compensation to be paid to these men, who have been forcibly ejected, not being protected by the police, for the loss of their clothes?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I understand that the Union-Castle Company disclaim liability, but that the immediate needs of those men have been met as to the cost of living and clothes.

TERRITORIAL TROOPS (BOUNTIES)

Mr. HOHLER: 44.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that bounties due on the retention or re-enlistment of the Territorial soldiers demobilised as long ago as April and May last is being withheld on the ground that their final accounts have not yet been received from India; and will he at once take steps to see that these men are paid forthwith?

Mr. FORSTER: I am not aware that the bounties are being withheld, but if my hon. and learned Friend can give me particulars of any cases I will have them investigated.

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE. (SELECT COMMITTEE REPORT).

Mr. MARRIOTT: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government has considered the Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure (Ninth Report, of Session of 1918, on Forms of Procedure); and whether, if so, the Government is prepared to propose to the House the setting up of one or more Estimates Committees in accordance with the recommendations therein contained?

Mr. BALDWIN (Financial Secretary to the Treasury): It is not practicable to set up special Estimate Committees for the current year; but the question will receive further consideration as regards the future.

WHISKY (ISSUES FROM BOND).

Captain O'GRADY: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the result of basing the issue of spirits from bond on the year 1916 is that the returned
soldier has no title to share in the distribution, and finds great difficulty in getting supplied; whether he is aware that potent doses of spirits are the best prophylactic against influenza and that many people perished last winter for the want of supplies; and whether he will now allow those who are in a position to deliver larger quantities to do so without reference to the datum year?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The question of the supply of whisky is under consideration, and I hope to be able to announce a decision shortly.

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND ACT.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether, for the information of Members of the House, he will state what is the position regarding the Home Rule Act now on the Statute Book; and what are the Government's intentions in relation thereto?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Unless legislation is previously enacted, the Government of Ireland Act will come into operation on the ratification of the last of the Peace Treaties. As regards the last part of the question, I am not in a position to make any statement.

IMPERIAL WAR CABINET.

Mr. MARRIOTT: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Imperial War Cabinet, as described in his statement of 17th May, 1917, modified by the announcement of 16th August, 1918, is still in being; and, if so, when it last met and of whom it is composed?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend on the 5th August last.

COAL INDUSTRY COMMISSION (EVIDENCE).

Mr. GRATTAN DOYLE: 52.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the promise made by Mr. Justice Sankey, printed at page 432 of the minutes of evidence of the Coal Industry Commission, that speeches by counsel will be placed at the end of the evidence so that they may appear as part of the pro-
ceedings; whether he is aware that this promise has not been carried into effect and that those who desire to form an impartial opinion on the proceedings are much hampered thereby; and what measures, if any, are proposed to be taken in order to supply such an important omission?

Sir R. HORNE: I have been asked to reply to this question. I am informed that the evidence has not yet been fully issued. The third volume has yet to be published, and speeches by counsel will be included in it.

Mr. BRACE: Is it fair or proper for the Government to use the medium of a Blue Book to publish the coal-owners' case against Nationalisation at the nation's expense?

Sir R. HORNE: What we propose to do is to publish the proceedings. If, unfortunately, they contain documents adverse to my right hon. Friend, I am afraid he must suffer.

Mr. BRACE: My point is that the House had better rely on the evidence. I should like to raise that point.

Mr. G. DOYLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman issue the report of the speeches in a separate volume? Or will the whole of the proceedings appear in one volume?

Mr. BALDWIN: The speeches to which my hon. Friend refers occurred at the conclusion of the evidence, and they will be printed in their order in the ordinary way.

Mr. BILLING: Are speeches evidence?

Sir R. HORNE: They are part of the proceedings.

Lieut.-Colonel WHELER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the printing of the speeches affords one section of those deeply interested in the Committee their only opportunity of having their case put before the public?

TURKISH TREATY.

Captain W. BENN: 54.
asked the Prime Minister what is the reason for the delay in the conclusion of the Turkish Treaty?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The reason is that it has not been found possible to proceed with the conclusion of the Turkish Treaty until the United States has signified whether or not it will share in the responsibility for protecting the peoples inhabiting the former Turkish Empire, and for assisting them until they can stand alone.

Lord R. CECIL: Is it not possible to-make a treaty with Turkey merely providing that she shall give up the sovereignty of certain States, leaving it to the Allies to settle their future?

Mr. BONAR LAW: My Noble Friend knows quite as much about that subject as I do. It would be but a very small step in the direction in which we desire to go.

DARDANELLES COMMISSION (REPORT).

Mr. LAMBERT: 56.
asked the Prime Minister when the Second Report of the Dardanelles Commission will be published;-and whether it will be published without alteration?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is hoped that copies of the Report will be available for Members by the middle of next week. The printers are only waiting for the delivery of certain maps from the Ordnance Survey. The Report is being published without alteration.

UNDERGROUND WORKINGS (DAMAGE FOR SUBSIDENCE).

Mr. ROBERT MCLAREN: 57.
asked the Prime Minister when the Bill dealing with damage to property on the surface caused by subsidence due to underground workings is likely to be introduced?

The PAYMASTER - GENERAL (Sir J. Tudor Walters, for Dr. Addison): I am not at present in a position to state when the Bill will be introduced.

WOMEN'S ARMY AUXILIARY CORPS (DEATH FROM SPOTTED FEVER).

Mr. HAYDN JONES: 58.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether his attention has been called to the case of Jean
Roberts, who joined the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps at Kinmel Park Camp on the 28th November, 1917, and who died of spotted fever in Bangor Military Hospital in January, 1918, contracted during her period of service; whether he is aware that she was the main support of a widowed mother and five children, one of whom is a cripple, and that no compensation is recoverable under the Workmen's Compensation Acts nor under the Regulations governing the terms of her enlistment in the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps; and, as the mother has been compelled to seek Poor Law relief, whether His Majesty's Government, in the exceptional circumstances indicated, will afford adequate financial assistance and so remove from the mother the stigma of receiving parochial relief?

Mr. FORSTER: I have been asked to reply. The circumstances of this case have been brought before the War Office. I regret that I have no power to extend to dependants of members of the Queen Mary's Army Auxiliary Corps who die of disease in this country more generous treatment than that accorded to the dependants of other women employed on Government work during the War, but I am considering whether it is possible to grant exceptional treatment in this case.

1914–15 MEDAL (CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS).

Major Earl WINTERTON: 56.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether any efforts were made to ascertain the views of serving and demobilised combatant officers and men who fought on any front from 1914–15 on the decision of the War Office to grant the 1914–15 Medal to the Young Men's Christian Association workers; and if he is aware that some of those workers who have received the 1914–15 Medal were afterwards found to be conscientious objectors to combatant military service?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): With regard to the first part of the question, the award of both the 1914 Star and the 1914–15 Star to certain personnel of the Young Men's Christian Association who fulfilled specified conditions in the theatre of war was decided upon by the Army Council after full consideration. With regard to the
second part of the question, the Star was awarded in respect of service rendered during a prescribed period.

Earl WINTERTON: Are we to understand that persons who were afterwards found to be conscientious objectors received the 1914–15 Medal and are put on the same basis as those who did combatant service in France and Italy?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir; the medal is given in respect of certain definite services, and if those services have been rendered the holding at a later date of particular opinions does not deprive the recipient of the right to the medal. That can only be done by a Civil Court for certain definite offences.

Captain W. BENN: Is it not a fact that many of these Young Men's Christian Association workers and conscientious objectors actually served in the firing line as stretcher bearers and in other capacities?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The 1914–15 Star and Rosette are only awarded to people who actually came under the fire of the enemy.

Mr. BILLING: Are not the circumstances referred to here exceptional?

Earl WINTERTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted any associations of ex-soldiers and sailors on this subject? Is he aware there is widespread dissatisfaction among combatant officers and men of both Services throughout the country at this astounding decision?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The decision was taken by the Army Council, which had among its members officers who were engaged in all these operations. I cannot believe myself, there can be any widespread indignation because there can only be a very few cases—possibly a score at the outset—and I do not feel justified in altering the general rule governing the distribution on account of these few cases.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: How many of these men were killed?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not carry that in my head.

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

OLD SOLDIERS.

Mr. SITCH: 68.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is considering,
the question of granting an increase to all old soldiers in receipt of pensions for services prior to the recent War; and whether he can hold out any hope of these men being granted a concession to enable them to meet the present cost of living?

Mr. FORSTER: I fear I can add nothing to my reply on 27th October to the hon. and gallant Member for Edmonton.

DEMOBILISATION.

DISPENSERS.

Mr. TOOTILL: 70.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Quartermaster-Sergeant Brown, No. 91920, acting as dispenser, Royal Army Medical Corps, 20th Stationary Hospital, Constantinople, is entitled to demobilisation, together with several other men acting as dispensers, but cannot get released until their places have been filled by substitutes; whether dispensers are being sent out to relieve these men; and whether he will take whatever action is necessary to secure their early return and demobilisation?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The dispatch by specific dates from their overseas stations of all men demobilised has been authorised, subject to the necessary shipping being available, and it is hoped that all such men, including the man referred to in the question, will arrive home at an early date.

MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS.

Major FARQUHARSON: 74.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he will give the total number of medical practitioners who Have been demobilised since 1st April,19191

Mr. CHURCHILL: The total number of medical officers demobilised since the 1st April, 1919, is 4,823.

Major FARQUHARSON: 75.
asked the Secretary of State for War how many medical practitioners holding temporary commissions in the Royal Army Medical Corps, the Royal Army Medical Corps, T. F., and the Royal Army Medical Corps, S. R., respectively, are still detained under the terms of their contracts in Mesopotamia, India, and Egypt, respectively; and do the numbers given include day officers in respect of whom special
recommendation had been made for early release by the Ministry of National Service prior to April, 1919?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not in a position to give separate figures for the several categories of officers referred to in the first part of the question, but the total figures I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The figures are as follow:


Mesopotamia.
India.
Egypt.


175.
152.
244.

These totals include the following in respect of whom a special recommendation for early release was received from the Ministry of National Service prior to April, 1919:



Temporary Commissions.
Territorial Force.
Special Reserve.


Mesopotamia
9
—
1


India
12
1
2


Egypt
5
2
1


The figures are only approximate, as a large number of officers are at present embarking for the United Kingdom from the countries in question.

HOSIERY AND CLOTH (WAR OFFICE).

Mr. HOHLER: 61.
asked the Secretary of State for War how many yards of cloth (various) his Department still retains over and above the amount handed over to the Ministry of Munitions?

Mr. FORSTER: Seven million yards of cloth of various kinds are at present held in stock. As soon as the requirements of the Army, the Dominion Governments, and the Government of India are definitely ascertained, any further surplus will be reported for disposal.

Mr. HOHLER: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise how the Government are keeping up prices by retaining this cloth?

Mr. FORSTER: I am not satisfied about that last statement. The Disposal Board have disposed of an enormous quantity of cloth. I am not sure that the trade has been able to absorb it all.

Mr. HOHLER: The Disposal Board have only disposed of 500,000 yards out of 11,000,000, and the Army is holding it up.

Mr. FORSTER: No; we are not holding it up. Ten and a-quarter millions is the
amount placed at the disposal of the Ministry of Munitions. If they have not bet' able to sell that quantity it does not seem to be a very sound proceeding to add to it.

Mr. HOHLER: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Army authorities have only recently handed it over?

Mr. FORSTER: I do not know what my hon. Friend means by recently. It has been handed over in the course of recent months. I think it is a perfectly sound policy that we should have definite information as to what our requirements are going to be before we part with further cloth unless, indeed, they have been able to dispose of what they have got.

Mr. HOHLER: 62.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he will give particulars of the hosiery now held by his Department and of the amount, if any, which has been handed over to the Ministry of Munitions since the 1st of April last?

Mr. FORSTER: The quantities are as follow:

Present stock.
Reported for disposal since 1st April, 1919.


Socks, worsted, pairs
11,242,700
2,500,600


Drawers, cotton "
714,487
210,587


Drawers, woollen "
2,553,400
Nil.


Caps, comforter
599,400
Nil.


Gloves, woollen, pairs
2,079,000
1,000,000


Vests, woollen
1,536,900
Nil.

It may be possible to report further quantities of certain items for disposal when the requirements of the Dominion Governments and of the Government of India have been ascertained.

HIS MAJESTY'S FOROES (ORNA- MENTAL CERTIFICATE).

Mr. F. C. THOMSON: 67.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is still the intention of the War Office to issue an ornamental certificate, in addition to a discharge certificate, to each member of His Majesty's Forces who served in the War; and, if so, when the issue of the certificate is likely to begin?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I greatly regret that in view of the large expenditure of time
and money involved it has been found necessary, in present circumstances, to abandon this proposal.

TROOPS FOR SILESIA.

Mr. TOOTILL: 69.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the 52nd Royal Warwickshire Regiment, stationed at Gladbach, near Cologne, is under orders to proceed to Silesia; whether he is aware that men of this regiment were given to understand that they would not be sent further than the bridgeheads of the Rhine; whether it is in order to send youths of nineteen years of age to Silesia; and whether he will have this matter reconsidered?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Units are being sent to the plebiscite areas in accordance with the Peace Treaty, and these are being furnished from the Rhine Army. As regards the remainder of the question I can add nothing to the reply given yesterday to the hon. Member.

TRADE UNION SECRETARIES, MONMOUTHSHIRE.

Mr. T. GRIFFTHS: 71.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to state the result of his inquiries as to the reason why the military authorities in Monmouthshire recently secured the services of the chief constable in that district to obtain for them the names and addresses of the secretaries of trade union branches in the area?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed that the military authorities in South Wales approached the Chief Constable of Monmouthshire in the spring of this year with a view to obtaining the names and addresses of the secretaries of trade union branches in the district, in order that the information might be available in case any occasion should arise for communication with the trade union secretaries. The request implied no sort of hostility to the unions.

VOLUNTEERS (GREAT COATS).

Mr. HAYDAY: 73.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that
men who served as Volunteers and have been disbanded are now being requested to return the great coats supplied to them or pay the War Office £1 in lieu; whether he is aware that in many cases the coat has been worn out and thrown away; and whether, in view of the services rendered by these men, he will have this requisition cancelled?

Mr. FORSTER: It has been clearly laid down that these great coats remain the property of the State, as they do in the Army, and of course have to be surrendered or properly brought forward for condemnation if and when worn out. The permission given to the regular soldier to purchase his great coat for £l if he so desires has been extended to the Volunteer; but this is a separate question from that of a charge against any Volunteer who has thrown away or otherwise disposed of Government property.

Mr. BILLING: Having regard to the work done by the Volunteers in the War and to the fact that they received no medal or compensation of any kind, and having regard to the difficulty the War Office are having in disposing of their cloth, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider letting them keep their old ragged coats?

Mr. FORSTER: The question was carefully considered, and I do not think I can go back on the decision.

PROCLAMATION OF MEETING, COUNTY TYRONE.

Mr. DEVLIN: 76.
asked the Secretary of State for War on what grounds the military authorities issued a Proclamation forbidding the holding of a public meeting in Caledon, county Tyrone, on 1st November?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have no special information. I have asked for a report.

Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman's answer that he knows nothing of the proclamation of the constitutionally called public meeting proclaimed by the military authorities?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No. The military authorities in Ireland act in accordance with the wishes and policy of the Irish
Executive, and although I am prepared to answer questions about them I have in. the first instance to call for a report, which I have done on the question appearing on the Paper, and I have not yet received that report.

Mr. DEVLIN: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has had some experience of having political meetings proclaimed in Ulster by the same people who proclaimed my political meeting in Ulster, and I defended him when he was proclaimed, I now want him to give an answer to my question.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am entirely ready to give such an answer, but in order that I may do full justice to the subject I propose to wait for the report.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman have the answer at the Adjournment to-night so that we may discuss it as brothers in misfortune?

Mr. CHURCHILL: If we are going to approach this question fraternally I should ask for a little longer delay than that.

AIR SERVICE.

Captain W. BENN (by Private Notice): asked the Prime Minister whether the Government adheres to its pledge to maintain the unity of the Air Service?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the affirmative.

BRITISH TROOPS (GERMANY).

Mr. ADAMSON: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for War whether any British troops are under orders to proceed to Silesia, Dantzig, Poland or any other district apart from the places for which provision is made in the Feace Treaties; and, if so, will he state the destination of these troops, the number of troops concerned, and the objects in view?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No troops are under orders to proceed to any district other than the plebiscite areas in accordance with the Peace Treaty. The lat part of the right hon. Member's question does not, therefore, arise.

RESIGNATION OF MAJOR-GENERAL SEELY.

PERSONAL STATEMENT.

MAJOR-General SEELY: (speaking from the Front Opposition Bench):The House generally wishes to know the reason for the retirement of any of its Members from the Ministry and in a very few words I will endeavour to tell the House the reasons which have impelled me to resign the high position which I have hitherto held. When the Government was first formed the Prime Minister asked me to go to the Air Ministry, and in a curious phrase, as announced officially, to "preside over the Council." It was a curious arrangement in that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Churchill) was to hold the seals of both offices as Secretary of State for both War and Air. It had the obvious anomaly that the Admiralty was left out of the business altogether. But I accepted it because I had a very deep interest in the Air business for a very long time. Indeed, I was charged by Mr. Asquith, then Prime Minister, with the task of being President of the Committee of Imperial Defence, which laid the foundations of our present Air Service. Also we were not then at peace with Germany, and I thought it my duty to take any office in which one could be of service. It involved, obviously, the dangers of dual control. Dual control is a dangerous thing anywhere, and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War would be the first to admit, it is peculiarly dangerous in the air. Nevertheless, I undertook the duty gladly, and endeavoured to work it, but it very soon became apparent that the thing would not work, not for any personal reason, but because by actual fact and by statute the only man who can preside over the council is the Secretary of State. He cannot divorce himself from his responsibility, even if he wishes to do so. All questions such as these, submissions to the Sovereign, memoranda to the Cabinet, dealings with the responsible heads of other Government Departments, where any question of controversy arises, and, above all, on questions of high policy, must be the duty of the Secretary of State, and of him alone.
As soon as this became apparent I informed the Leader of the House, through my Noble Friend the Member for Chichester (Lord Edmund Talbot) that
the arrangement was bound to be inefficient and wasteful and that I would ask for a change. He begged me to wait until after peace was made with Germany. I accordingly did so. When the Prime Minister returned in July I then put the case before him, and in very precise terms stated that the present arrangement for the reasons I have shortly given, was one which I thought was not in the interests of the State, and, above all, inimical to the interests of the Air Service, and I asked for a change. The decision was delayed, first owing to-the Prime Minister's absence in France, having a much-needed rest, and then owing to the railway strike. The matter came up finally for decision twelve days ago. The Prime Minister treated me with the utmost courtesy and consideration, begged me to reconsider my position, and finally told me that he had decided on the present plan after due consideration and that he did not propose to abandon it. The only possible course for me to take, as I am sure the House will agree, whoever of the two of us was right, was for me to resign and be no longer responsible for an arrangement which I was convinced was wasteful and inefficient.
There is no personal question involved. There is no personal question between myself and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War. If any man could, have done two things he could have done, with his boundless industry. I have never met so industrious a man—and with his care for the Air Service as a whole, than whom it has had no better friend. If any man could have done it he would have done it, but the thing is obviously impossible. The War Office is a whole-time job, as I have reason to know, and the duty of the Secretary of State for Air—this service, with its vast possibilities—is a whole-time job too. A man cannot be in two places at once, even if he is the Air Minister. The very fact that the offices are distinct, that the Air Ministry is a distinct office, makes it quite impossible for the responsible head of one to be also the responsible head of the other. Still less is there any personal difficulty in the Air Ministry itself. I can say truly, and I have had some experience of public life, that never has a man been so faithfully served by loyal and devoted servants as I have been in my position by the members of the Air Council, and especially by Sir Hugh Trenchard and General Sykes, whom I
think the State is fortunate in having at the head of their respective Departments. The issue involved is very clear and very definite and involves questions of vast importance. By deciding as the Prime Minister has done that the Air Ministry is to receive its guidance from its responsible head, from a man who can only give a fraction of his time to it, it seems to me that three certain consequences follow. First of all, because such a man, however industrious, cannot possibly give enough time to enable business to be efficiently conducted, and it must mean delay, and delay must mean waste—waste of time, waste of energy, waste of money. Secondly, the fact that the Admiralty is left out of the business must make it difficult to work in with that great Department. How can the First Lord of the Admiralty appeal to the Air Ministry for a proper allocation of funds and a proper allocation of energy, with the infinite possibilities of air effort in regard to the Navy, when all the time he finds that the man he is addressing is the Secretary of State for War?
Over and above all, the result of this decision must be that the Air Ministry is condemned definitely to be a subordinate office and an annexe of the War Office, with results, I am sure, inimical to the good of this country. We must be involved in waste of our commercial possibilities. We must be involved in waste of money on a gigantic scale by not taking advantage of the new inventions and of the new power that the air has given us, to enable us to undertake our great and increased responsibilities throughout the world. If anybody doubts that, let him consider what is the possibility of the air. One aeroplane has saved a war in Afghanistan, and in future aeroplanes may do much more. If it be said, on the plea of economy, that it is wise to combine the offices, then I would say that it is wasteful in the extreme. We cannot possibly hope to maintain our position throughout the world unless we use science to the utmost, and especially the science of the air. I could no longer consent to agree to a plan which I thought would have these fatal results, and I so told the Prime Minister. Believing as I do that the result must be a loss of millions of money and of thousands of lives, I asked him to relieve me of that duty. He may say that he knows better. He may say that this is the old dispute between brigade head-
quarters and general headquarters, and that from that there can be no appeal. In that case there is no appeal, but here there is an. appeal. There is an appeal to this House, and to this House, accordingly, I appeal.

Lord HUGH CECIL: In view of the importance of the statement; to which we have just listened from the right hon. Gentleman, shall we be given an opportunity of discussing the statement, and the circumstances in which it has arisen, and, if so, on. what day?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is not usual, I think, for a Member of the Government to say anything in reply to a personal statement such as my right hon. Friend has made, and I should not have done so except for the Noble Lord's intervention. Since I am on my feet, however, I desire to say, on behalf of the Government, how much we regret that our right hon. Friend has found it necessary to resign, but at the same time to say that it is simply a question of difference of opinion; he takes one view and we take another. As regards time for discussion, we shall, of course, follow the wishes of the House. I cannot name a day, but if there is a desire for such discussion we shall be very glad to afford the opportunity for it.

Mr. BILLING: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House can say if it is the policy of the Government to appoint another Air Minister?

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Granton Harbour Order Confirmation Bill,

Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Bill,

Fraserburgh Harbour (New Works) Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, entituled "an Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Wick Harbour." [Wick Harbour Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, entituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Scottish
Amicable Life Assurance Society." [Scottish Amicable Life Assurance Society's Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]

Sex Disqualification (Removal) Bill [lords],

That they have agreed to certain of the Amendments made by this House to the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Bill [Lords], without Amendment; they disagree to one of the Amendments, for which disagreement they assign a reason; and they agree with one other Amendment, with Amendments.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Wick Harbour Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Ordered (under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be considered To-morrow.

Scottish Amicable Life Assurance Society's Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Ordered (under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be considered To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRIAL COURTS BILL

Considered in Committee. — [Progress, 10th November.]

[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 6.—(Continuance of 8 and 9 Geo. 5. c. 61.)

The provisions of the Wages (Temporary Regulation) Act, 1918, which are specified in the Schedule to this Act shall, subject to the modifications specified in the second column of that Schedule, continue in operation until the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and twenty.

The MINISTER Of LABOUR (Sir R. Home): I desire to draw attention, to a point of Order with regard to the first two Amendments on the Paper, standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Henderson). The first Amendment, to leave out the words, "which are specified in the Schedule to this Act," would have the effect of re-establishing the Wages (Temporary Regulation) Act, and of continuing it from the date when it expires, namely, the 21st November, until the 30th September of next year. That would incidentally have the effect of continuing in existence the Interim Court which has been dealing with these questions in dispute for the last year. In the first part of the Bill we have set up a new Industrial Court—a permanent Industrial Court, which is intended to deal with the very same questions; and accordingly I venture to suggest that these Amendments are now out of order, looking at what has been passed in connection with the initial portion of this measure. It would obviously be impossible that you should have two Courts set up under the same Act which were to exercise the same functions but which would have contradictory proposals attached to them. For example, the Interim Court would be entitled to make certain decisions compulsory upon employers, whereas the very scheme of the Bill as adopted has been to set up a purely voluntary Court. Upon that the Committee was agreed, and indeed the House was agreed upon it on the Second Reading. Therefore I venture to submit that the first Amendment standing in the name of my right hon. Friend, and also his second Amendment, to leave out the words, "subject to the modifica-
tion specified in the second column of that (Schedule" are out of order, considering what we have already done in relation to this Bill.

Mr. A. HENDERSON: Before you, Mr. Whitley, reply to the point of Order raised by the right hon. Gentleman may I be permitted to ask whether it is not in order for the Committee to continue all or part of the Wages (Temporary Regulation) Act referred to in the Clause with which we are about to deal? The Wages (Temporary Regulation) Act deals with a considerable number of subjects, amongst them being the setting up of prescribed rates and the arranging for hearings whereby awards may be given; and when those awards have been given they become the substituted rates in place of the prescribed rates. Our object in moving to amend Clause 6 is to secure, not the machinery part, because we are aware that new machinery is being set up, but to maintain the power of the employers on the one hand, and of the workmen on the other, the one to go for a change of rate by way of reduction and the other to go for a change of rate by way of increase. That has been possible ever since the Wages (Temporary Regulation) Act was first passed, and that is the power which we seek to maintain and which we were led to believe by the right hon. Gentleman still remained in his present Bill. I hope that I shall be given an opportunity of stating my case with regard to that. I now merely put the point as to whether if this carries on the Wages (Temporary Regulation) Act, it is not possible for us to carry on that part which we desire to carry on, and to retain the powers of both parties which they have had since the Act was first passed.

Sir R. HORNE: I am afraid I have not made myself quite clear to my right hon. Friend. His first Amendment proposes to drop out words which, if they were excluded, would make Clause 6 read as though the whole Act should be continued, and not merely the powers which we propose to continue. That is the point I wish to make. We propose that only certain sections of the Act shall be continued, those sections being consistent with what we have done in previous parts of this Bill. It is perfectly plain that if you continue the whole Act you are going to have two inconsistent things in this Bill, because we set up first of all an Industrial
Court of a voluntary character, which is to deal with the very same questions as the Interim Court at present deals with. Accordingly it would be impossible, as it seems to me, to consider my right hon. Friend's Amendment as being now in order without making the Bill absolutely nugatory. If his only desire is to secure that the new permanent Industrial Court shall be able to deal with applications for increases, I can assure him at once that it will. If he looks at what the subsequent part of the Bill proposes he will agree as to that. What it cannot do, of course—and I wish to make this point perfectly clear—is to make compulsory a decision which it gives. The Interim Court was entitled to issue compulsory decisions with regard to wage questions—decisions, at least, which were compulsory on the employer, but not on the workman. As I stated to the House on the Second Reading that was one of the things which we desired to get rid of, and the House accepted that. The whole scheme of the Bill is one which enables the decision of, and the coming to, the Court, to be voluntary on the part of both parties. What my right hon. Friend is now asking under this Amendment is to have two Courts which are to do the same thing, and that, I venture to submit, renders the Bill either a mass of inconsistencies or an entirely unworkable measure.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: I should like, if I may, Sir, to offer a suggestion to you. To the ordinary Member it is quite impossible to understand, owing to the system of legislation by reference and schedule, what really is going to happen under even such an Amendment as this, and what I venture to suggest to you is a course which you have more than once adopted to my own knowledge, where a large amount of dubiety has existed in the Committee, as I venture to say is the case on this occasion. It is that you might allow the Amendment to be moved, and see, by the explanation of it given by the Mover, what his intention is, and what reply the Government make to it. By that time the Committee themselves will be fully seised of the point, and, if I may say so with much respect, perhaps you yourself will also be better informed of what the Amendment may mean. I therefore respectfully put forward the suggestion that you allow the Amendment to be moved, so that the matter may be made somewhat more clear to the Committee as a whole.

The CHAIRMAN: These two Amendments have been tendered to Clause 6, and I notice that there are also two Amendments to the Schedule standing in the same names, and also an Amendment to the Schedule in the name of the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the Bill. I do not feel that it is my duty to say that it is impossible to modify Clause 6. I could not take it upon myself to give a ruling as to the exact legal effect of certain Amendments. It would seem to me that if the Amendment first offered, to leave out the words, "which are specified in the Schedule to this Act," be read along with the Motion to leave out the Schedule, that would leave the Bill in an inconsistent condition; but I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Widnes (Mr. Henderson) is entitled to put his case on that point. It may be that he proposes to read some of these other Amendments into the present one, and in that case I think the Committee will deal with it on its merits.

Mr. HENDERSON: I beg to move to leave out the words "which are specified in the Schedule to this Act."
I do so in the hope that I may raise the question as to the future operation of the Wages (Temporary Regulation) Act. It will be necessary for me to explain, first of all, what has been the position of both employers and workmen under the Act since it was passed last year. It was there laid down that the rates of wages, including war advances and war bonuses, paid in November, 1918, should become what are known as the prescribed rates They were statutory rates which an employer must observe as minimum rates. There was nothing, however, in the Act to prevent the employer from paying more than the minimum so laid down, but he was compelled to pay the minimum. It was also provided that the Court of Arbitration which succeeded to the powers of the old Committee on Production were given power to hear applications for variations of the prescribed rate, and in their award they could either award a further advance or they could make a reduction. Where an award provided for a new rate, that became the substituted rate, and had the same force in law as the prescribed rate originally agreed upon. I think it has worked out in practice that where the Arbitration Court did vary the rate it was usually in the way of an increase of the original
prescribed rate; I do not know that there was any case where it resulted in a reduction.
I think I am right in saying that it was possible for the workman to go to the Court without the consent of the employer. If the Bill now before the Committee is agreed upon as proposed by the Government, I think the position will be completely changed. I think it will be no longer possible for the workers to go to the Court, even to the new Court and with the new machinery that is provided under the Bill, without the consent of the other party. What the Bill does is to stabilise the wage as it is at present. I may say in passing that we have an Amendment down, which we hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept, making quite sure that the award issued a few days ago will be so safeguarded that it will hold good just as if it had been given several months ago.

Sir R. HORNE: I have myself an Amendment down to that effect.

Mr. HENDERSON: I was going to say that is a point upon which we are agreed, but I think I am right in saying that wages will be stabilised without variation up or down until 30th September next year. This is one of the most glaring cases of tacking that I have ever seen. The trade unions asked for a continuation of the Temporary Wages Regulation Act. It must be admitted that there is very little in the Bill of the old Act, but there is a good deal of new matter, for which the trade unions and for which the employers never asked, tacked on to it. This does very seriously affect their position. Wages will be stabilised, and the right of one party to go and ask for a reduction and the right of the other party to go and ask for a further increase will be lost. This is one of the most serious parts of the Bill. We know how the cost of living varies. We know, when the trade unions about four months ago went to the Interim Court of Arbitration, that they were refused any advance because there had not been a sufficient change in the cost of living. When they went again at the end of the week before last, an award was promulgated giving them an increase of 5s. because of the increase in the cost of living. I do not think that even the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to tell the Committee that there is no prospect between now and 30th September of a
further increase in the cost of living. I do not think that he will be prepared to tell the Committee that we have now got to the position when there is no possibility of a further and serious increase. Unless he can give us some such assurance, is it wise, with the present temper of organised labour, not only as we see it in this country, but also in other countries, to expose the workers to the risk of a further increase in the cost of living, and yet take away from them for the next twelve months the power of going to the Court or to any form of arbitration?
We ask that the position under the Temporary Wages Regulation Act should continue in order that they may have the opportunity of presenting their case and asking for a further increase owing to the cost of living. We are all exceedingly anxious to encourage arbitration and to prevent strikes. We constantly hear, and rightly so, about the need of increased production in the interests of the nation as a whole. Is it going to make for increased production if the cost of living goes up and these men are told that they are no longer to have the right of going to the Court to state their case? I must emphasise the fact that under the Government Bill no applications can be considered without the consent of both parties. The right hon. Gentleman admits that point. It has been said more than once in the Committee that the Bill, because of this tacking and because of the introduction of this new matter, has received a considerable amount of opposition from the trade unions. They have agreed to fix their final attitude towards it when they have seen what the Bill is like as it emerges from Committee, and an important conference is to be held on Friday next for the purpose. I want the right hon. Gentleman to consider that aspect. I know of nothing in the Bill that will exercise such an influence upon that conference as his position with regard to the appeal that I now make to leave in the possession of the organisations this right to go to the Court without the consent of the employer, if they think that the cost of living has increased. We have given the right hon. Gentleman, without very much opposition, the new form of machinery that he desires, and we have agreed to these Courts of Inquiry. Surely, remembering that the trade unions asked for a further extension of the Wages (Temporary Regulation) Act till 30th September next year, it is not asking too much that
he should amend the Bill, and return to the workers this very important power which they feel is being taken away from them.
May I explain why we are moving our Amendment? If the Government want to do no more than that which is represented by their Amendment, there is a very much simpler way of doing it. In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman does not want the machinery of the old Wages (Temporary Regulation) Act, and, in view of the fact, also, that there is not much in the Bill except machinery and the laying down of the principle that the employers on the one side shall be able to go for a reduction and that the workman on the other side shall be able to go for an increase, why did he not in one single Clause clearly and explicitly do what was done in the railway agreement? One paragraph of that agreement, as the right hon. Gentleman knows full well, merely says that the wages will be stabilised till 30th September, 1920. When the railway representatives were negotiating with the Government they clearly understood that language. Here, instead of that, we have a short Clause, and then we proceed by the objectionable method of reference to a Schedule. I have had this Clause and the reference to the Schedule interpreted in different ways. I am going to charge my right hon. Friend with interpreting it in the first instance as we interpret it. I myself spoke to him and asked him a question as to whether the power remained to the trade unions to go and ask a Court for an advance owing to the cost of living, and whether the power remained to the employers to go and ask for a reduction, and he said that I was right in my interpretation.

Sir R. HORNE: Yes.

Mr. HENDERSON: It is so?

Sir R. HORNE: Yes.

Mr. HENDERSON: The Solicitor-General, who is here, will tell us that it is not. We could not do what the right hon. Gentleman suggests unless we had the consent of the employer. Let us be quite frank with each other. Is that the position that has obtained since the passing of this Act? I am asking, by way of Amendment, that we should continue the position in which we have been since November last year, when the Act was passed, and that as workmen we should have the right, without the consent of the employer, to go to the
Court because of the cost of living. If we are to be asked to go to arbitration and to try and prevent strikes, is it right that we should not be able to go to arbitration without the consent of our employers? Is that the position into which we are going to be forced? If we are forced into that position it will create an amount of unrest. The workmen will feel that some advantage has been taken of them, because all that the employer will have to say will be that he does not agree, and then, in spite of an increase in the cost of living, wages will remain as they have been fixed until 30th September next year. I want to press that point home. On the Second Reading my right hon. Friend the Member for the Platting Division of Manchester (Mr. Clynes) said:
I would like the right hon. Gentleman, or whoever may reply in the later stage of this Debate, to express some view on the point as to whether, should the Bill become law, they will continue and guarantee in law only those rates which now exist, or will they make legal the payment of those rates which might be secured as the result of further awards or further arrangements between employers and employed?
Sir R. Home: I may say at once that the latter position of my right hon. Friend is right."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th November, 1919, col. 1719, Vol. 120.]
My right hon. Friend put that question in order to elucidate this very point to which we attach so much importance. The right hon. Gentleman's answer led us to believe that our interpretation was right, and that we should be in a position to go to the Court. Imagine our surprise when we read the memorandum that has been circulated to-day, and the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman to find that that right to which the trade union movement attaches so much importance is to be taken away. The promise of stabilisation is obviously meaningless if wages are to remain at the present level. We feel that the machinery whereby we have been able to get some relief from the cost of living should remain open to us, free and unfettered, without our having to ask the employers for their consent.
I would especially appeal on this point for women workers. After all, unfortunately, in many trades, the organisation of the employers so far as women workers are concerned, is not nearly so good as in the more highly organised employers' federations and associations. Those of us who have had to do with sweated trade legislation and with the Trade Boards know how difficult it is to get some em-
ployers to respond at all to public opinion —these employers who are in trades that are either sweated or are on the borderline of sweated trades. The right hon. Gentleman knows the appeals we have been making to increase the number of Trade Boards, because of this difficulty, and yet here we are getting on very slowly with the Trade Boards, and now this machinery that the women have been using and that the other great organisations have been using is going to be taken away. I hope even now the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the position and let us have, if not our Amendment, at least some Amendment or modification of his own Amendment in the Schedule that will restore this right to the trade unions. I believe nothing would contribute more to industrial peace than the granting of this condition.

Sir R. HORNE: I take great blame to myself for the way in which I have presented this Bill, first of all, on the Second Reading, and later in Committee. It is perfectly apparent from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman—I admit it is my fault—that he has not yet appreciated what is the main characteristic of this Bill as distinct from the Interim Wages (Temporary Regulation) Act. At the risk of wearying the Committee and with the desire to make the matter clear, I will re-travel some of the road which I travelled on the Second Reading, and to some extent in the Committee discussion. First, what was it the Interim Wages Act did? It stabilised the wages—I use the phrase generally because it did not stabilise all, but it stabilised wages up to the 24th November of this year—wages which were in the form of prescribed rates, speaking generally, district rates. But it did more than that. It gave an opportunity to apply to a Court for an increase or a reduction of those wages, to have, indeed, a rate substituted for the prescribed rate. In general that was taken advantage of in this way. Workmen applied for an increase owing to the increased cost of living, and, on the other hand, on one occasion at least, the employers applied for a reduction because the cost of living was going down. At the time when the Interim Act was passed most people thought that the cost of living was going to come down, but what the Act did was to make it certain that without a reference to a Court no employer could reduce wages. That was the advantage which was given
to the workmen. The Act operated only one way. If the workman wanted an increase in his wages he could hale his employer before the Arbitration Court, and the employer was bound to come. After the Court had decided, the employer was bound to act in accordance with the decision of the Court. An employer who wanted to bring his workman to the Court to get a reduction of wages could not compel the workman to come, and the workman could stay and use his opportunity of striking. Again, where a decision was given, while the employer had to abide by the decision, the workman was not compelled to abide by it. That is the reason why we have had during the last two months a strike of ironmoulders which has been of the greatest disservice to the country.
The trade unions came to me and asked me to have the Interim Wages Temporary Regulation Act changed. I told them quite frankly on 20th October, at a meeting they had with me, that from what I knew of the temper of the employers, especially after the experience of the iron-moulders 'strike, that they were no longer going to consent to a lopsided Act and that they would not agree to any further stabilisation of wages if the Act was to be in that form. They were perfectly prepared to agree to the workman getting the advantage of knowing that his wages would not be lowered between now and 30th September and that the employer should be under compulsion to pay those wages till that time, but they were not going to be in such a position that the workmen could force them to a Court for increases, while, if the decision was given against the workman, he might still strike.
I explained all this on the Second Reading Debate. I thought the House understood it. The principle upon which the present measure depends is that both parties are on the same footing, except this—which is an enormous advantage to the workman—that the workman can legally compel the employer to pay the the present wage right up to 30th September, no matter how much the cost of living may fall. That was chiefly what the trade union organisation wished. Why was it we had a railway strike? Was it not explained on the ground that the men feared that their wages were going to be reduced? I hope the Committee clearly understand that the basis of the present Bill is purely voluntary arbitration, and that there
would have been no stabilisation of wages unless the arbitration was voluntary. We provide first of all a rate of wages which cannot be reduced till 30th September; we provide that if the workman wishes to get an increase he can ask his employer for an increase. If the employer refuses, there is then a difference between the parties. That difference being reported to the Minister of Labour is a matter for him to deal with. He sees if he can contrive a settlement by conciliation or any other arrangements which are in existence in the particular trade. If he cannot, he may refer to the Industrial Court. If he refers it to the Industrial Court, it is true that neither party is compelled to go, but both parties can go if they wish, and, therefore it is quite erroneous to say that the workmen may no longer go to a Court of Arbitration. The Court is there for the workmen to go freely to, for both parties to go voluntarily to. But what my right hon. Friend has been asking is that the employer should be compelled and the workmen not. It is impossible to continue that system in the present conditions.
I think it only requires honest explanation to the trade unions to make them clearly appreciate what has been done and to enable them to realise that there is here, as ready a means for the settlement of these disputes as there has been during the last year. I do not expect that any case will arise in which a workman says to his employer, "We want to go to the industrial Court," and that the employer will refuse. He will be only too glad to take advantage of the opportunity for a peaceful settlement of the question. It is because of that hope that I look with the greatest anticipation to the efficiency of the Courts which it is proposed to set up. I hope I have made it plain that the means of resort to a Court of Arbitration is here within this measure. Nothing is dropped out of the scheme which was necessary for that purpose. All that has been dropped out is that element which compelled the employer and did not compel the workman. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Henderson) has misunderstood the passage in which I replied to my right hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes). He did put a question which, as I understood it at the moment, was precisely the question which I thought the right hon. Gentleman himself originally asked me when he began his speech, I understood both the ques-
tion at the beginning of his speech and that of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clynes), which has been quoted, to be this: "Is the means for reference to a Court of Arbitration to be taken away?" My answer was: "No, it is not. It is still here." It appears to me that my right hon. Friend now, as always, has got behind his head, if he does not say it, that a decision once given must be legally binding on the employer and not on the workman. If that had been added I should then have given a totally different answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes). I certainly never understood him to be asking a question which involved this. Immediately afterwards, when I was informed that there was some misapprehension, I saw the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clynes), and explained to him the whole matter. He perfectly understood, and I am very glad my right hon. Friend has given me an opportunity of explaining to the Committee. I venture to submit that the scheme of the Bill is totally contrary to the Amendment which is now proposed, and that the provision of the Bill which the Committee so readily accepted would be wholly inconsistent with the Amendments which are now on the Paper, and accordingly, Mr. Whitley, I venture to ask you to give the ruling which I originally submitted.

The CHAIRMAN: I have already put the Question, and I think the very course of the Debate shows how wise I was in allowing the Debate, for it is apparent that there has been a genuine misunderstanding as to the effect of the Clause. Certainly I understand it in a way in which I did not half an hour ago.

Mr. R. YOUNG: I was under the impression that in the Second Heading Debate we had secured a continuance of the operations of the Wages Act. The difficulty we are in to-night is this: We are supposed to be discussing a Bill which is of a voluntary character in relation to arbitration, but we find that the Bill has in it something that is voluntary and something that is to be compulsory for a year. We also find in it something that is of a really temporary character and something which is meant to be more permanent. We argue that it was a great mistake to mix these two things, and consequently we are anxious to impress the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Home) with the necessity of separating these things
and of making the Bill such that the workers can understand that the privileges they had under the temporary Act would still apply. Now the right hon. Gentleman has circulated a Paper and he says he is going to stabilise wages for a year up to 30th September next. But it is still possible for the workers to make application, with the consent of their employers, for an increase of wages, and, on the other hand, I assume it is still possible for the employers, with the assent of the workers, to make application for a decrease in wages. I want quite frankly to say that, in spite of what my right hon. Friend has said, I do not think any employers during the next year would readily consent to an application of that character, and I am going to be equally candid and say that I do not think any trade union would consent to an application for a reduction of wages during the next year. Apart from that, what is the good of one side or the other making an application and going before this Board to get a decision which neither side is under any necessity of carrying out? I see no good in it at all. Therefore, we are forced back to the position that it is necessary the workers should have some safeguard against the economic conditions which may arise during the next year.
The cost of living, for all practical purposes, may remain just as it is now. On the other hand, the cost of living may increase through the operations of this House in relation to subsidies. Is it contended that real wages are stabilised for twelve months if the subsidy for bread is removed? The removal of that subsidy would mean an immediate increase in the expenditure of thousands of working men's homes, and there will be nothing to make up for the loss. The working man would then be suffering an actual reduction in real wages outside the operation of the Bill. I think my right hon. Friend (Mr. A. Henderson) is justified in raising this matter now. I regret the speech of the Minister of Labour in relation thereto. Had he separated these two parts, he would have had a voluntary Bill which would have been of great use in future, because it would have done something to draw together the employers and the employed. The whole operation of the Bill for the next year, at least, is prejudiced because of this dual condition, namely, that it has within it that which is com-
pulsory and that which is non-compulsory, that which is temporary and that which is meant to be permanent.

Major GREAME: The last words of the hon. Member seemed to be a most convincing argument against the Amendment. He has asked the Committee to reject the principle of preserving voluntary and compulsory features side by side. The very object of the Amendment is to perpetuate a one-sided compulsory system side by side with a voluntary one. I know I can speak on behalf of a very large number of employers who are most anxious to see this Bill go through and to give every possible opportunity to arbitration and conciliation. It is always difficult when statements are made in Debate or in Committee referring to understandings reached at meetings between Ministers and other persons, or as to undertakings that have been given. But I am perfectly certain that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill has never once gone back on any undertaking he has given and he is always clear in the statements he makes. The issue here really lies in a very narrow compass. Hon. Members opposite cannot blow hot and cold. They cannot argue, as they did with force in the Debate two days ago, against compulsion—argue that every shadow of compulsion ought to be taken out of this Bill, and then come here to-day and argue that a most unfortunate and one-sided compulsory feature should be allowed to remain. I am glad this is not decided as a point of Order but as a point of principle. It goes to the root of the whole Bill, and it is a principle which we established on the Second Reading, namely, that the time is not yet ripe for compulsory, but that every possible opportunity ought to be given to voluntary, conciliation. We are advisedly substituting for compulsion in a Statute the compulsory force of public opinion. It is at the bar of public opinion that these differences are to be judged in the future, if there is one test which public opinion is going to lay down and insist upon it is the acid test that the same principles should be applied to employers and employed in industrial disputes and settlements. I am certain that the great majority of employers and of workmen, who want to see their way to industrial peace, agree that unless that principle is established we shall not even make a. beginning in getting our problems settled.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: At the end of the Clause, add:
(2) Where, before the passing of this Act, any matter has been referred for settlement under the Wages (Temporary Regulation) Act, 1918, and has not, at that date, been settled by the person or persons to whom it has been so referred, the Minister may by order transfer the matter to the Industrial Court, and where any such matter is so transferred the award of that Court shall have effect as if it were an award of the Interim Court of Arbitration made under that Act."—[Sir R. Home.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 8.—(Definition of "Trade Dispute.")

For the purposes of this Act, the expression "trade dispute" means any dispute or difference between employers or workmen, or between workmen and workmen connected with the employment or non-employment, or the terms of the employment or with the conditions of labour of any person.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. R. YOUNG: I beg to move, to leave out the words "or difference" ["any dispute or difference between"].
This is the first of a series of Amendments, all more or less related to each other. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman appears to have met us on the second of the Amendments. What I rise for is to secure from the Minister of Labour the meaning of the words "or difference," and an explanation of the Clause as a whole. It seems to me that these words give far too wide a definition to a trade dispute, especially in relation to employers and employed or in relation to "workmen and workmen." As far as the workmen and workmen are concerned, we are undertaking a very perilous procedure. You may get the men to assent to appearance before the Industrial Court, or to allow the question to be discussed at a Court of Inquiry, but immediately you commence to interfere in what appears to be trade union, business between workmen and workmen, then you are getting into a very different position. I want the right hon. Gentleman to leave these differences to the men themselves; they will find the best method of squaring the difficulty "What the right hon. Gentleman has to do is to satisfy himself that the machinery he is setting up will clear away disputes between employers and employed, and in that way he will accomplish a good deal. I am almost certain that some employers will resent this interference in a difference between them and their workmen. When is the Minister going to intervene? The difference may be of a very petty character. We do not
desire to see the Minister on each and every occasion, if he so thinks fit, interfering on the differences. We have no guarantee that successors to the right hon. Gentleman will exercise the same discretion as he exercises. His successors may give the widest possible interpretation to the words "or differences," and by doing so undo the good work which the right hon. Gentleman is endeavouring to carry through, Under the Trade Union Act we were safeguarded from any interference in relation to our domestic matters, and I trust that nothing is now going to be done that will in any way limit that safeguard. At the same time I confess that on certain questions, such as demarcation, employers of labour have to put up with a great deal. But there again you are introducing a third party. I say most decidedly that in matters of that kind it is dangerous to introduce a third party like the employer. The workmen generally, both sides, are in the right, that is to say you have to make arrangements between the two parties. Those who discuss these demarcation questions have usually arrived at a solution to their satisfaction. In demarcation questions in which I have taken part I have, found that the attitude of the firm or of the manager or even the attitude of the foreman was held suspect in relation to one or the other, and, therefore, it was always better to go by an arrangement between the two parties. We trust that in relation to demarcation questions the position which will be taken up will be, "you are both right or wrong, fight it out for yourselves." I want to draw attention to these words "or difference" in relation to employment or non-employment. What had the Minister in his mind in using those words? They cannot refer to discharges or cases of victimisation, because those will become a dispute and are amply covered by the closing words of the Clause. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean by these words to refer to the question of trade unionism versus no trade unionism? If he does, he is adding danger to danger, and is probably going to turn what is a purely parochial or local matter into a national question and dispute, and we all know that national disputes are more or less national disasters, at least that is my opinion. From that point of view the Minister will make a great mistake if he seeks to interfere in. any way with that which we regard as a purely trade union matter to be settled between the trade unions. Although an
employer on demarcation questions has to suffer, and sometimes unjustly because we do not rapidly come to a decision, yet at the same time he is far better out of the question altogether. I urge the Minister not only to remove these two words but to accept the subsequent Amendments.

Sir R. HORNE: I appreciate very much what my hon. Friend has said in regard to the use of the words "or difference." I entirely agree with him that it would be most unfortunate if interference were to take place between employers and workmen upon any trivial topic which would not assume the dimensions of real serious trouble. I entirely agree with that sentiment, and I hope that any Minister who occupies my place will take the same view. On the other hand, there are occasions when the difference between the parties does assume an aspect which requires clearing up. For example, you might have a discussion between an employer and the workmen as to whether a man really came within the class of operatives who were asking for a prescribed rate. That point has been raised on many occasions in the Interim Courts of Arbitration. You might call that if you like a dispute, but, on the other hand, it would be more accurately described as a difference which must be cleared up if you are to avoid a dispute. Accordingly, the word "difference" was put in the Bill for that purpose. In addition to that, the phrase itself has certainly got the sanction of previous use. For example, I find in the Conciliation Act, to which there has been so much reference in our Debates, the following words, "where a difference exists or is apprehended." Then the Board of Trade is empowered to take steps towards conciliation and for the appointment of an arbitrator. So that there the Board of Trade was to have its functions brought into operation, not merely when a dispute arose but whenever a difference was either apprehended or in existence. As well as that, I find in the Minimum Rates of Wages Act, 1918, the words "any difference" are also used. Therefore, while I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's view, and appreciate the attitude for which he argues, I honestly think it would be somewhat unsafe to leave the word "difference" out, because you might find people, and you always find some people willing to put impediments in your
way, who would be prone to argue that you had not got to the stage of a dispute, and that accordingly no action should be taken. I think under those circumstances, with all the good will in the world, I must from the legal point of view, and in order to keep the Bill watertight, keep the words in. The other points are substantive and quite distinguishable from the first, and I think it would be well to take them one at a time.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: Leave out the word "or" ["employers or workmen"], and insert instead thereof the word "and."—[Mr. Wardle.]

Mr. YOUNG: I beg to move to leave [out the words "'or workmen" 'and to insert instead thereof the words "and employés."
I move this Amendment in order to secure that it shall not only include manual workers but staff workers. It seems to me that a subsequent Amendment by the right hon. Gentleman covers the point.

Sir R. HORNE: Yes, my Amendment to be added at the end of the Clause covers the point and includes the class of people whom the hon. Member desires to bring within the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. YOUNG: I beg to move, to leave out the words "or between workmen and workmen."
We decidedly object to having a Government Department interfering between us as trade unions in our own trade union or as belonging to different trade unions. We will not tolerate it under any circumstances, and any attempt to do so will only prejudice this Bill in its working, and if you once create a prejudice against this measure in any of these important materials you are likely to find that the good produced under this measure will become discredited. Consequently, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should satisfy himself with what good he can do between employer and workmen without interfering with the trade unions.

Sir R. HORNE: In using these words I went to a source which I am certain will be appreciated by the benches opposite. The origin of the definition really was the Trades Disputes Act of 1906, where it is defined as "any dispute between em-
ployers and workmen or between workmen and workmen." Accordingly I felt myself upon a very solid foundation when I selected this method of defining the words "trade dispute" There is also, a very practical point, apart from the sanctity of the origin of the phrase, in its application. I had some experience of trade disputes during the War. I do not think I exaggerate when I say that there were far more disputes between workmen and workmen over demarcation questions than between employers and workmen. So far as the machinery for settling those differences was concerned, I could find none, but those questions came up to me repeatedly and my aid was frequently invoked to bring about a settlement between the various parties in such disputes. For example, there were certain Destroyers hold up for a considerable time during important weeks of the War because of a dispute going on between shipwrights and fitters as to which of them was to perform a particular operation in connection with a bomb thrower on the deck of a ship. I was appealed to by both parties as to my view upon that question. I think it is certainly necessary we should not exclude the possibility of the Ministry of Labour being asked to take some action in such cases. I am perfectly certain no one will wish voluntarily to intervene in such a dispute because one is only apt to get one's fingers burnt. At the same time, I think it would be a great pity if you did not allow the Ministry to be in a position to give whatever aid they could in cases in which they might be of some assistance. Accordingly I venture to ask my hon. Friend not to press his Amendment upon this point.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. YOUNG: I beg to move, to leave out the words "employment or non-employment or the."
I desire to get an expression of opinion from the right hon. Gentleman as to whether these words mean a dispute as to union or non-union. I can quite understand the position that he may think that on demarcation questions he can render very useful service. I have no reason to doubt that he was called in with great acceptance to both parties during the War, but in this matter you come to a more dangerous question. Who is going to call him in? The employers cannot call you in in this matter. Therefore I
want to know if you are going to intervene on the question of the employment of union or non-union men.

Sir R. HORNE: I readily respond to the request of my hon. Friend, and I agree it is a point of substance. I am very glad to have the opportunity of answering questions on these points, and perhaps the best answer I can give in this instance is by giving an illustration of my work in the last week. One of the Members of this House came to me with a notice that had been published by certain employers saying that they were not prepared to take on men, I am paraphrasing the words, who were members of particular unions. I was asked to intervene in that dispute, and the particular works had been shut for some days. I quite frankly say I have no sympathy with that kind of man, and I took means to have an officer of my Department brought into touch at once with the employers in question. The result has been, or, at any rate, if it is not the result of my intervention it has followed, and I think it is partly the result of my intervention, that notice has been withdrawn and, as I understand, the men are now going back to work. I think in that case the Ministry performed a very useful service, and I do not want to be prevented from performing similar service if the opportunity should arise. Personally, I should be sorry if these words were dropped out of the Bill. I realise the point which my hon. Friend made, but I do think on such occasions the Minister of Labour might be able to exercise a genial and amiable influence on a situation which would otherwise give rise to dispute. I find again, on a reference to the Trades Disputes Act, that it deals in terms with that very phrase. One of the occasions of a trade dispute is where it is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment and the conditions of labour. Accordingly, I venture, with all respect to my hon. Friend's opinion, to adhere to the use of this phrase.

Mr. RENWICK: In these cases of difference between one class of workmen and another, the hon. Member said that the line of demarcation was not a point in which the employers can intervene.

The CHAIRMAN: That Amendment has been disposed of.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: At the end of the Clause, add the words
The expression 'workman,' means any person who had entered into or works under a contract with an employer whether the contract be by way of manual labour, clerical work, or otherwise, be expressed or implied, oral or in writing, and whether it be a contract of service or of apprenticeship or a contract personally to execute any work or labour."—[Sir R. Horne]

The following Amendment stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: At the end of the Clause, add the words
Provided that a, trade dispute shall be deemed to exist or to be apprehended if any justice of the peace complains to the Minister about the hours of employment or conditions of labour of any person, and that such justice of the peace shall be deemed to be one of the parties to such dispute.

The CHAIRMAN: This Amendment, I am afraid, goes beyond the scope of the Bill. We have not yet made a magistrate a promoter of trade disputes.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 9.—(Rules as to Appearance by Counsel or Solicitor.)

Provision shall be made by Rules under this Act with respect to the cases in which persons may appear by counsel or solicitors on proceedings under this Act before the Industrial Court, before an arbitrator or before a Court of Inquiry, and except as provided by those Rules no person shall be entitled to appear on any such proceedings by counsel or solicitor.

Mr. HENDERSON: I beg to move, to leave out the words
Provision shall be made by Rules under this Act with respect to the cases in which persons may appear by counsel or solicitors on proceedings under this Act before the Industrial Court, before an arbitrator or before a Court of Inquiry, and except as provided by those Rules.
There are a series of Amendments down to this Clause which clearly show that our anxiety is to remove the lawyers from the conduct of these disputes. I notice with interest that three hon. and learned Gentlemen have put down an Amendment to delete the entire Clause. They evidently agree with us that there are more important and more remunerative duties with which to occupy their time than these disputes.

Colonel GREIG: On a point of Order. I have handed in a manuscript Amendment which I hope will not be made out of order by a discussion of the series of Amendments in the name of the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends. My Amendment
accepts the first part of the Clause, which he is now moving to omit, and deletes the last part of the Clause.

The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment before the Committee is not to leave out the whole Clause.

Mr. HENDERSON: I was merely referring to the full effect of the series of Amendments we Lave put down. No words are required, and we think that the more the cases are conducted by the employers, who have their practical experience, or by their officials, who after very long service, say, as secretaries of an employers' association or federation, also have the necessary experience on the one side, and by the representative leaders of the trade unions on the other side, the better it is for all concerned. I should like to hear how far the Government are prepared to agree with us on this point.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir E. Pollock): I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for moving the first of these Amendments, in order that we may appreciate exactly what the Clause does and how far it is intended to go. I hope he will not think me Mr. Facing-both-ways if I say that I really agree with all the Amendments put down. I agree very cordially with the observations he has made, that in the vast number of cases to place this sort of case in the hands of barristers or solicitors would probably be to defeat part of the machinery which is set up. Persons who can perfectly well state their case want to state it in their own way and want to make it as little as possible a legal question, but, as the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill pointed out the other night, you come at times to serious and big questions over a matter of legal interpretation or legal rights based upon a sequence of Acts, rights belonging to either or both of the parties, and on those legal questions you save time very much by having legal assistance. I think those persons who have ever had to sit and hear legal questions argued would say that they had derived considerable benefit from them, and that time had been saved by a careful and succinct exposition of a legal point by persons who, by their training, are well qualified to put it. All that the Clause says is that provisions shall be made by rules with respect to cases in which persons may appear by counsel or solicitors on proceedings under the Act before the Industrial Courts, an arbitrator, or a Court of
Inquiry; and the latter portion of it is to the effect that, except as provided by those rules, no person shall be entitled to appear on any such proceedings by counsel or solicitor. In one sense I agree that those words are unnecessary, but they are put in to indicate that in a great number of cases no legal assistance should be given, and that legal assistance should be available only in proper cases so decided by the Court. The intention is that under the rules there should be sufficient opportunity for the Court itself to determine whether there is a legal point to be argued on which legal assistance would be useful, and that, if so, that legal assistance could be used. The other cases would fall under the latter part of the Clause. I think that represents a fair compromise, and I hope my right hon. Friend opposite will be satisfied with it.

Mr. HENDERSON: What about our proposal lower down to insert the words "save with the consent of the parties to the dispute"

Sir E. POLLOCK: I think it is the Court which would be the best judge, and that you could leave that matter to the discretion of what is an independent tribunal far more safely than you could to that of the parties. I can conceive of cases in which both parties would be quite rightly under the belief that it would be useful to have either counsel or solicitors, or I can conceive that they might refuse to have them because they might not appreciate that a legal point had to be determined and argued, and I think the best course is to leave that discretion where we have to leave so many other points of discretion, namely, in the hands of the Court.

Sir W. PEARCE: I have had some experience of these arbitrations, and I have also heard accounts from a good many other people. The fact is that it is the business of the trade union officials always to be considering these cases, and so they can put their case with very great force and ability, but the employers concerned very often have neither the time nor the inclination to devote the same amount of attention to the cases, and I am sure the Government want to take some safeguards that in cases of real importance it should be possible to have legal assistance. As a rule, I am against legal assistance, but from the employers' point of view, it not being a whole-time job, as it is for the
trade union officials, they should not be debarred in certain cases from having legal assistance.

Mr. WILKIE: I too have had considerable experience of these matters. I know of a case where one side had lawyers and the other had not, and it caused more trouble afterwards than before. I think their introduction is really unnecessary, because these difficulties should be discussed by those who are really concerned, and the moment you bring in the professional gentlemen, our experience has been that it has been of no benefit and only causes greater irritation and more difficulty than if they had not been there. Therefore, I have pleasure in supporting the Amendment to delete these words.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: I hope the Solicitor-General will accept the Amendment. We have had some experience in dealing with questions of this kind. In order to give an illustration, I entered into an arrangement with the tinplate employers in South Wales some time ago in reference to the forty-seven hours week. I said to the chairman of the employers, "Are you accepting the arrangement made with reference to the forty-seven hour week at the Tinplate Board?" He happened to be acting chairman of the Board and he said, "Yes, we followed the arrangement made at the Tinplate Board." The employers saw that their chairman had made a mistake, with the result that this matter was referred to a committee of two employers and two workmen. They failed to settle, and the matter went to the Committee on Production. The question there was really the interpretation of the promise made by the chairman of the Board. Would you under this Clause permit counsel to be employed in order to interpret the words of the chairman? If so, there would be this position. There are small societies in connection with the tinplate trade in South Wales. I know of one society of 2,000 in number and of another society of 1,500 in number. If employers are permitted to employ counsel, they might employ the most learned man in the land and pay him £100 or £200 for a brief, whereas these smaller societies would be unable, on account of finance, to employ any counsel at all. You will put these small societies in great difficulty if you are going to allow counsel to be employed in cases of that kind. I should
like to know from the learned Solicitor-General whether in such a case as that which I have cited it would be permissible for any employers to employ counsel.

Mr. NEAL: I certainly cannot understand the Labour party moving this Amendment. It is an Amendment in favour of blacklegging. They say no lawyer shall do a lawyer's work, but anybody else may do it for him. Transpose that, and see how it fits in with their usual methods of procedure. No joiner may do anything if it is supposed to belong to a plumber, and no bricklayer may do anything belonging to a stonemason. But when it becomes a question of how best to put before these most important Courts and tribunals arguments in favour of the workmen's case or against the workmen's case, questions involving industrial stability and security in this land, then the only persons who are to be debarred from appearing there are to be the persons who, by training, by education, and by profession, are the proper persons to appear there. How this is reconcilable at all with trade union principles I do not understand. But I am not rising in defence of my own profession. Many attempts have been made in Bills that have come before Parliament to strike out the right of the subject—and it is the right of the subject to choose his own adviser and representative—but, so far as I know, they have almost always failed, and I think they always will fail, and for this reason, that it is obviously sound policy to permit a person or an organisation whose interests are at stake to be represented in the way that that particular person or organisation thinks best, and I cannot understand why there should be any limitation upon that right.
Just consider for a moment the kind of question which may come before the various kinds of tribunals under this Bill. Just consider how far-reaching and important they are. It is quite true that in many of the cases the workmen could have no better advocate than their trade union representative. I have known gentlemen who are ordinary representatives of the trade unions put their case with skill, moderation, and great ability, and always with great persuasion. There is nothing whatever to hinder a trade union from continuing to employ its own representative. I differ entirely from the hon. Gentleman in thinking that he would
be at any disadvantage against any counsel in the land. The fact is that such a person has a distinct advantage, and the tribunal permits him latitude which it forbids to the skilled advocate, and the cause of the trade union in many cases is in perfectly sound hands, but not in all. This is a matter which calls in some cases for expert advocacy of a different kind. It is not connected with the technique of our industry, but with broad and great principles. Why should my hon. Friends who represent Labour wish to take the right away?
If you turn to the other side, the employers are very often a limited company. There is none of their staff who would consider himself capable of taking part in a controversy of this kind, and employers go before an Arbitration Court very badly handicapped, If you want a recent experience of how desperately unfortunate it is to limit the right of skilled advocacy, you have an instance in the Coal Commission, where there was no freedom of advocacy. Even a learned counsel, an hon. Member of this House, who, by your leave, was permitted to appear before that Commission, was absolutely reduced to a position that was altogether derogatory to himself and the profession to which he belonged, and ultimately he was told to put his speech in writing, and it would be considered. It is not necessary that I should speak in the interests of the profession to which I have the honour to belong. If their claims are not sufficient to commend themselves to those persons who are interested, they will not be approved, and there is an end to the matter, but if the persons who are interested think it is necessary for them to be represented in the best way they know how, then surely they have a right that that shall be done. I do hope the Government will not only resist this Amendment, the character of which I cannot understand as coming from trade unionists, but I hope the Government will listen with an attentive and a friendly ear to an Amendment on the Paper which asks that this Clause shall be struck out altogether

Mr. J. JONES: I would like to draw the attention of the hon. Member who has just sat down to the title of the Bill, the Industrial Courts Bill, and I venture to suggest to the Committee that those of us who represent the trade unions are not asking for any new disability to be placed upon the members of the legal profession.
We are simply asking that the method of procedure that has been adopted up to the present in the matter of arbitration and industrial disputes shall continue to prevail. In matters of law I am quite prepared to admit I am a child. Perhaps my infantility in that direction will be recognised. But I want to point out that, so far as the average member of a trade union is concerned, we have a great suspicion of lawyers when they are out of their proper places. We have been told by the representative of the employers, the hon. Member for Limehouse (Sir W. Pearse), that employers do not know how to conduct themselves before these Courts as compared with the ordinary trade union official. I suggest that an employer who pretends to be interested in his employés would not merely himself take a keen interest in the conditions under which his employés work, but if he had not the time or the opportunity he would see to it that some member of his staff was particularly appointed to deal with the matters which are likely to come before these Courts. The Courts deal with wages, hours of labour, and conditions of employment. There is no question of interpretation of law so far as these Courts are concerned. Trade unionists are not averse to employing the best kind of legal advice they can possibly get when they find themselves in legal difficulties, but we say, sufficient for the day are the lawyers thereof.
In so far as we are concerned, we want to keep as clear as we can from legal entanglements when dealing with matters of industrial disputes between ourselves and employers. Nearly every employers' association employs as secretaries of their associations gentlemen learned in the law It is becoming more and more the policy with them, and we do not object. They have a perfect right to employ whom they like as secretaries of their various associations. We never employ these gentlemen unless we can help ourselves, as we know it is going to be a great expense and also create difficulty, because very seldom do you get two of them to agree on a particular point when it is placed before them, perhaps because the profession might be injured if they happened to agree. What we want in these Courts is that the ordinary employers and those whom they choose to represent them in the industry shall meet the representatives of the trade union, who are men engaged in the industries and know the interests of the industry. If we are to be compelled
to have lawyers foisted upon us merely at the whim of the employers, then the trade unions are going strongly to object to this expense and difficulty. We want the Courts to remain as they have been up to the present, places where the employers can represent themselves. I have appeared before the Courts with some Members of this House.

Sir W. PEARCE: Very good, too.

Mr. JONES: Having done so, I do not give my opponents credit for less intelligence than myself. If they have not the same interest in the matter, there is nothing to prevent them from having on their staff those with the requisite knowledge of the matters affecting their employés. It would give the employers good employment. Limited liability companies have been described as organisations which have "neither bodies to be kicked nor souls to be damned." Large numbers of employers when they get their position in certain trades and industries well-fixed unfortunately take no particular interest in the men or women employed by them. If you keep these legal gentlemen out of the Courts it might be an incentive to these employers to take a keener interest in the conditions under which their employés are employed, and so be better able to meet the case we may put up against him. We will not have lawyers if we can help it. They are all right in their proper place. They have helped us in time of trouble, and they may help as again in any particular case where we need them.

Sir E. POLLOCK: In reply lo the last speaker may I just say a. word or two as to how this Clause stands? I repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Henderson) that the intention of the Clause is to leave this mutter of rules to the discretion of the Court, and not as my hon. Friend who last spoke seemed to think—but I do not know that he heard me. I will repeat the assurance which I gave to my right hon. Friend that the intention was that in most of these cases, where no legal point arose, they should be discussed as hitherto without legal assistance. On the other hand, as the hon. Member for Stepney said; if the ruling is against having any legal assistance employers might feel a little shy; and I do not quite like offering him any at this moment. He pointed out cases where it was necessary that some legal assistance
should be available. What I feel in answer to the hon. Gentleman is that you may really trust the Court to see, in the cases where there is no necessity for any legal assistance or guidance, those concerned will do what they have done in the past. Those persons most nearly and closely interested will put their points with the utmost freedom, and the greatest knowledge of the facts. If they can do so, well and good. But as the hon. Member opposite said, sometimes there comes a time of trouble, and there is a necessity for a little legal assistance. If the matter involves a point of law which has to be discussed and upon which the Court would desire to have legal assistance, then as a rule legal assistance would be available. Under these circumstances I propose to leave the Clause as it is, because I think these last two lines, "except as provided by those rules no person shall be entitled to appear on any such proceedings by counsel or solicitor"—that these put plainly in the Bill what the intention is. So that cases will be argued as in the past. Then again, the other words of the Clause will enable those particular eases where legal points are raised to be discussed with legal assistance. In the other cases the present ordinary practice will prevail. I apologise for repeating myself, and I hope, under these circumstances, having made the explanation I have that our desire is to make the Clause a fair one, the Committee will be able to proceed.

Amendment negatived.

Colonel GREIG: I beg to move, to leave out the words
and except as provided by those Rules no person shall be entitled to appear on any such proceedings by counsel or solicitor.
In an earlier part of the Debate, the Solicitor-General suggested that the words were, in fact, otiose and unnecessary. I agree to a certain extent with that. I quite agree, too, with the principle that provision shall be made by rule, and that in these rules shall be stated the occasions on which solicitors or counsel may be engaged. Intricate cases might involve the interest of a third party. The Court in that case would not be prepared to exercise its discretion as to whether or not that person should be allowed to be heard by counsel, because such a one is prevented from pleading by Statute. I suggest that the Solicitor-General, in order to make real the discretion of the Court, should
accept this Amendment, and so provide that in cases for which the rules may not have provided, the Court shall have a discretion to permit counsel or a solicitor to appear.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I am very much obliged to my hon, and gallant Friend for having put his point quite clearly, but I am sorry I cannot accept the Amendment. I think that the rules properly safeguard the position. Again, after having made the statement I made a moment ago that I was of the opinion that the Clause should be kept intact, and so safeguard the rights of both sides, it would clearly be quite a breach of faith on my part if I was prepared to delete any of the Clause at the present time. Therefore, as I hope the rules and the discretion of the Court will be quite sufficient to prevent any injustice arising, I am afraid I cannot accept these words.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. R. YOUNG: I beg to move, at the end, to insert the words "save with the consent of the parties to the dispute."
The point I wish to put is that it is suggested that the Court should decide when legal assistance may be called in. It occurred to me that this may mean delay. The intention rather was this: We have now to come before the Court and ask them to allow legal aid, and so put us in a position to have legal assistance, if the Court desires. But we do not want to engage a solicitor first and then come to Court and the Court refuse to hear him. That is the point we desire to put forward.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for making his explanation. It makes plain the point, that the rules ought to provide as to the time when the application for legal assistance should be made. We have a procedure in the ordinary Courts which enables these sort of applications to be made before the actual hearing. I am obliged to him for raising that point. We must see to it that the rules give an opportunity for the settlement of this point before the actual hearing.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 (Application of Act to the Crown) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 11.—(Application to Scotland and Ireland.)

(1)In the application of this Act to Scotland reference to an oversman shall be substituted for any reference to an umpire.
(2)In the application of this Act to Ireland a reference to the Common. Law Procedure Amendment (Ireland) Act, 1856, shall be substituted for any reference to the Arbitration Act, 1889.

Amendment made: Leave out Subsection (2).—[Sir E. Pollock.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 (Report to Parliament) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 13.—(Short Title, and Repeal.)

(1)This Act may be cited as the Industrial Courts Act, 1919.
(2)The Conciliation Act, 1896, is hereby repealed.

Mr. J. JONES: I beg leave to move, to leave out Sub-section (2).
The object of this Amendment is, so far as we are concerned, to protect the rights of the workmen under the existing Conciliation Act of 1896. Nearly every trade throughout the country has a voluntary arrangement whereby they take advantage of this Act. They are firmly of opinion that if any attempt is made to interfere with existing agreements and arrangements under the Act, it is going to make considerable trouble and prevent the successful carrying of the provisions of this Bill. A large number of trade unions are not satisfied with the provisions of the present Bill, consequently they claim the right to remain under existing arrangements. We do not want this measure to affect the unions already covered.

Sir R. HORNE: I quite understand the position of my hon. Friends opposite to make the claim they do, but I think we have made Amendments to this Bill which provide for all that any of them have either asked for or can ask for. In the initial part of the Committee's proceedings the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton raised the question as to the position of the Bill under the Conciliation Act. I was very glad to adapt from him a proviso to Sub-section (2), which entirely meets the whole point of such agreements under the Conciliation Act. The proviso, as the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jones) may have noticed, runs as follows:
Provided that if there are existing in any trade or industry any arrangements for settle-
ment by conciliation or arbitration of disputes in such trade or industry, or any branch thereof, made in pursuance of an agreement between organisations of employers and organisations of workmen representative respectively of substantial proportions of the employers and workmen engaged in that trade or industry, the Minister shall not, unless with the consent of both parties to the dispute, and unless and until there has been a failure to obtain a settlement by means of those arrangements, refer the matter for settlement or advice in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Section.
6.0 P.M
That, along with the other provision with regard to a board of arbitration composed of a chairman, with panels of employers and workmen, entirely covers everything that the Conciliation Act does except that there is no provision made for the registration of conciliation boards. In point of fact, registration does not add anything to the efficacy of the conciliation boards, and out of 400 of those, boards only eleven have been registered. I know that originally there were twenty-four registered, but only eleven have survived; all the rest are unregistered, and they are just as efficacious. If you read the Conciliation Act you will find that it does nothing that is not done under this Bill. On this point I have completely satisfied the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton (Mr. Hodge), and I think a careful examination of this measure will show that nothing in the Conciliation Act is omitted. I keep in mind that I have gone even further at the request of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Withies (Mr. Henderson), because the Minister of Labour may set up panels of employés and workmen upon whom calls may be made for service in cases of arbitration.

Mr. HENDERSON: There is no need to argue this question very much, for it is only a matter as to whether in the case of the Act of 1896 we might allow it to remain. If we did it would be an alternative to the machinery of the Bill we are now discussing. It would have continued to act, as I believe it has acted, in spite of failure to register, as a stimulus to the setting up of conciliation boards. Inquiries go to show that vast numbers of conciliation boards have come into existence since this legislation was passed. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman is that this Act is superfluous in view of the new Bill, but I think the Committee will be well advised to allow it to remain.
If organisations desire alternative machinery which alone can be obtained under the Conciliation Act of 1896 why should they not have it? The right hon. Gentleman accepted the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton (Mr. Hodge), but that does not encourage the establishment of conciliation boards like the Act of 1896. We have not another day for Report under the arrangements made two nights ago, and we want to observe that arrangement, or I should have asked the right hon. Gentleman to have gone into the matters as to whether there was not some value to be derived from leaving this Act on the Statute Book, and allowing it to be supplementary, and an alternative both to organisations of employers and workmen if they desire to avail themselves of it. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether even now he cannot see his way to leave, out this Sub-section?

Mr. GRIFFITHS: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the whole thing we emphasised was that he should not interfere with the machinery of the conciliation boards now in existence, and that we should be allowed to carry on our business in an amicable way same as in the past. The Act of 1896 is an inducement for employers and workmen to come together, and nobody knows the benefit of arbitration boards more than the Government. Under this Act you do not give an inducement for employers or workmen to come together to establish these conciliation boards, but if you repeal this Act there will be no inducement for conciliation boards to be established. What is the danger of allowing the Conciliation Act of 1896 to remain in the Bill?

Sir R. HORNE: I am afraid that my legal instincts sometimes get the better of me, and it was really from the point of view of always trying to avoid confusion either between statutes, or different sections of the same statute, that I put in tins Sub-section for the repeal of the Conciliation Act of 1896. I am very much impressed with what my right hon. and hon. Friends opposite have urged upon me, and I recognise the value of the word conciliation. It has had a great advantage over the years in which it has received sanction in the Conciliation Act. I have looked carefully through the Act to discover anything that can clash with the
provisions of the measure now before the Committee, and I have come to the conclusion that no very great harm can be done, although there may be a certain amount of confusion. On the other hand the balance is in favour of the word conciliation in a statute, and holding it up as a lamp to which people may direct their eyes. I therefore consent to my right hon. Friend's request.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Awards of Interim Court of Arbitration.)

Any award determining or varying a rate which has been made by the Interim Court of Arbitration under the Wages (Temporary Regulation) Act, 1918, before the twenty-first day of November, nineteen hundred and nineteen, shall have effect as if it were an award made under this Act, whether such award would have come into operation after the said twenty-first day of November, nineteen hundred and nineteen or not.—[Mr. A. Henderson.]

Brought up, and read the first time.

Mr. HENDERSON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
I am anxious to know if it is intended that the award given within the last two days would be included. We think that unless some provision is made there may be confusion and disappointment as a result of that award not having statutory sanction, and I would like the right hon. Gentleman to consider this new Clause from that standpoint.

Sir R. HORNE: The point my right hon. Friend has made has been clearly in my view ever since we first began discussing the draft of the Bill. Between the two provisions, which I will refer to, the point of my right hon. Friend makes is completely covered. The Amendment which has been made to Clause 6 goes even further than the point which my right hon. Friend put to me, because it not only preserves the legal efficacy of awards already given, but it will not have come into operation before the expiry of the Act, and it gives efficacy to cases which may be referred to the Court before the expiry of the Act. Therefore, the Amendment goes further than the right hon. Gentleman asks. On this point we should take along, with what I have suggested, my Amendment to the scheme, which reads
the power to substitute any rate for the prescribed rate shall cease, without prejudice, however, to the enforceability of any rate substituted
for the prescribed rate before the commencement of this Act, whether the substituted rate has or has not come into operation before that date.
I think in those two provisions you have the whole matter clearly covered.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Laying of Orders and Rules before Parliament.)

Any Orders or Rules made under this Act shall be laid before both Houses of Parliaments as soon as may be after they are made and shall have effect as if enacted in this Act.

Provided that, if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such Order or Rule is laid before it praying that the Order or Rule may be annulled, His Majesty in council may annul the Order or Rule and it shall thenceforth be void but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.

Any Order or Rule made under this Act shall not be deemed to be a Statutory Rule within the meaning of Section one of the Rules Publication Act, 1893.—[Mr. G. Locker-Lampson.]

Brought up, and read the first time

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
I think this Amendment is important from the point of view of Parliamentary control. Under Clause 4 the Minister has power to make Rules with regard to Courts of Arbitration and also with regard to Courts of Inquiry. There are a great many precedents for this in former Acts of Parliament where Rules have to be laid before Parliament and no delay whatsoever is incurred. In the National Insurance Act of 1911 it is provided that the Regulations of the Insurance Commissioners must be laid before Parliament, and if eventually Parliament did not agree with them they hold good up to the point at which Parliament disagrees, and so they are valid until Parliament declares them to be rescinded. Then we have the Housing Act and the Ministry of Health Act and the Peace Treaty, and in each one of those the Rules and Regulations made by the Executive had to be laid before the Houses of Parliament, and hon. Members had a chance of saying whether they would have them or not. I do not see why my right hon. Friend should not accept this Amendment in the same way as his colleagues have accepted it under other Bills. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has read my Amendment carefully, but the last paragraph has been put down in order that there should be absolutely no delay.
Although the Act of 1893 provides for the document being laid before Parliament for at least forty days before the statutory rules become operative, I have taken the pains in the last paragraph of my Amendment to provide that this particular provision shall not apply here, and therefore there will not be any delay at all, and these rules will be perfectly valid unless and until this House decides to alter them. I therefore cannot see any reason why my right hon. Friend should not accept my proposal. I can quite understand certain right hon. and hon. Members on the Front Benches may not like it. It is a proposal not at all agreeable to the Whips, because it means that at any time of the night, after the general business is finished, any hon. Member can move an Address to the Crown with the object of rescinding the rules. Now that power is a very valuable asset for Members of this House. We have very few privileges and very few powers left. This is one of the few occasions on which an hon. Member, after the general business of the day, can get up and move an Address to the Crown and there is nothing to stop him. I hope, therefore, my right hon. Friend will see his way to accept the new Clause, which involves absolutely no delay, and merely ensures that if any hon. Member wishes a particular rule to be rescinded he shall be in a position to ask the House to assent to his view.

Sir R. HORNE: My hon. Friend asked just now whether I had read this new Clause carefully. I always do read anything which my hon. Friend puts down, and I may add that I paid the closest attention to all he said in favour of this proposal. Had it been one dealing with such subjects as he referred to, affecting the people's rights and privileges, for instance, under the National Health Insurance Act, I should have been heartily in favour of it. But as this Bill now stands nobody can be affected by any rule which may be made. This Committee has taken out the compulsory powers with regard to calling on people to attend the Court and produce documents, and therefore these rules will only be the ordinary routine rules of procedure providing for the way in which people may go to the Court. The procedure there followed will be the ordinary procedure which any Court makes for itself, and the Court may have to vary them in order to facilitate its proceedings. I quite agree that every
privilege and power of Parliament should be preserved. But this is not a privilege. It is only a nuisance. It is of the nature of using a steam hammer to crack a nut. Nothing can arise under the rules with which Parliament should be called upon to deal. I have not the slightest objection in principle to Parliament having all that is material before it, but I certainly think it would be a mere waste of time if we are only going to lay these things on the table so that everybody may ignore them. If my hon. Friend only really understood that, as a result of the new shape of the Bill, nothing is likely to arise under these rules affecting the jurisdiction of the House, I think he would feel inclined not to press his proposal.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Although the right hon. Gentleman has put his case very genially—as he always does—I must confess he has not been very convincing. All my hon. Friend asks by this proposal is this. We are setting up an Arbitration Court. The right hon. Gentleman is taking to himself powers to make rules relating to arbitration in certain cases and to lay down the way in which disputes shall be dealt with. All we ask is, that these rules shall be laid before the House. It cannot involve any waste of time, and, even should the House decide subsequently to abrogate a rule, it would not prejudice anything that has been done under it. I expected to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that there was some deep legal objection to this proposal. But his only point was that it is unnecessary. I respectfully submit to the Committee that it is not unnecessary to re-establish Parliamentary control. Members have felt it would be a good thing if this House of Commons had a voice in these big industrial disputes that arise. There have been settlements made outside this House very much to the detriment of the authority of Parliament. After all, this is the elective body for the whole country, and it is only by the State re-enforcing and corroborating the authority of the Court that you can give an effective answer to the people outside who want direct action. What my hon. Friend proposes is not only innocuous but may be most useful. I think it is a very valuable suggestion which will not clog the wheels of this Act, and it should therefore receive more favourable consideration at the hands of the right hon. Gentleman.

Major HILLS: I quite agree that the proposal is harmless and innocuous, but I do submit that the present is not a case where Parliamentary control is necessary. These rules affect the procedure of the Court of Arbitration. It is a domestic matter for the Court itself, and there is just as much cause for laying them before Parliament, which, incidentally, I do not think is the right body to criticise them, as to laying before it the procedure of the Royal Courts of Justice. But I rose for the purpose of making a suggestion, and it is that something in the nature of a joint committee of employers and men and of members of the right hon. Gentleman's own Department should be set up, and that it should be the duty of that committee to formulate rules under the Act. That would give the public more confidence. I quite agree it cannot be done now, but I hope the Minister in charge will bear this suggestion in mind. I am just as strong as my hon. Friend opposite for Parliamentary control. But that control must be over proper subjects, and I do not think it is for this House to criticise complicated domestic matters of procedure.

Mr. RENDALL: I think the right hon. Gentleman hardly realises how deeply the public generally are affected by the disputes which will have to be dealt with by this Court. It is possible that some rule altogether bad might be made, or a rule of procedure altogether unsuitable for dealing with certain cases. At the same time, there may be a great deal of public unrest, and we should best get rid of that by having power here to ventilate the matter. I agree that it is not at all likely that the rules which are made will ever be discussed here, but there is a possibility that if some criticsm can be made publicly the hands of the Court may be strengthened in any dispute that may arise. There may be occasions when by means of a Debate in this House public unrest may be allayed, and therefore I think the right hon. Gentleman might very well accept the new Clause, especially having regard to the general position of the House of Commons at this time, the general public unrest, and the enormous powers which Departments are always trying to take on themselves.

The CHAIRMAN: I think I ought to point out that even if this proposal were carried it would not give an opportunity
for raising a discussion of the nature suggested by the last speaker. Such a discussion would be quite out of order.

Sir E. POLLOCK: The Rules with which we are dealing are for the purpose of arranging the procedure of the Court—a Court which, we hope, will be accorded a very high status, and no doubt those Rules will be drawn with great care. But to suggest that this House ought to exercise some control over them is to miss the point altogether. My hon. and learned Friend who last spoke seemed to indicate that at a time of great industrial unrest it might be possible, if these Rules had to be lad before Parliament, for Parliament to intervene. But that is the very moment when Parliament ought not to intervene to subvert the authority of an independent Court. For Parliament to use its influence at the very time that Court is going to exercise its functions is the very thing which ought to be avoided. Those who have experience in the High Court would deprecate at any time, when a matter is before the High Court, a discussion in Parliament in which it might be asserted that the procedure under which the Court was acting was wrong. It would only lead to confusion. A Clause similar to this was put into the Treaty of Peace for this reason, that certain Orders in Council had to be made for the purpose of carrying out the terms of the Treaty. The Orders in Council provide for regulations to be made under them. That is all right, but here we are dealing with a matter which is purely domestic and largely administrative. It is quite right that Parliament should retain the control in such a case as I have quoted, but here my hon. Friend is dealing with a question of rules which will lay down the procedure of a Court which should be independent, and on whose judgment we should rely.

Captain BENN: It is a Court of Inquiry.

Sir E. POLLOCK: The Court is not to be a creature of the House or of a Minister; it is to be an independent Court. It is to have a very high status as an independent Court. To bring its rules of procedure before this House would be quite a new practice. It is really impossible. A more careful examination of the purpose of the Rules and the common use of this form will convince the Committee that really this Clause is unnecessary.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: When the Insurance Bill was going through the House I remember exactly the same arguments being used about the Rules and Regulations which were going to be made. It was then pointed out by the Government that these Regulations and Rules would amount to some, hundreds, and that it would not be of the slightest use. As a matter of fact there have been thousands of Regulations and Rules issued by the Insurance Commissioners, and on one or two occasions this House has taken the opportunity of discussing them, and I am not at all sure that my hon. and learned Friend did not himself take part very late at night in the Debate on a Motion for an Address to the Crown disallowing one of the Insurance Regulations.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I hope I did, because the matter was completely different and it affords an excellent illustration of the difference between the Rules we are discussing now and the Rules on which I made a very happy and successful intervention. Those were Rules which were administrative and dealt with the rights of parties which were to be dealt with entirely under those Rules. They had nothing to do with the rules of procedure setting up a Court. As they affect the rights of property directly I am glad to be reminded that I was so successful in the intervention I made.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: That is exactly what I was coming to. These particular Rules in the Insurance Act did not wholly deal with rights. You have here Regulations under Clause 60 made for the procedure of insurance committees. The whole of these have to be laid before Parliament.

Sir E. POLLOCK: My success was not on that.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: My argument is that you have here under the Insurance Act Rules dealing with the procedure of Insurance Committees, rules for the giving of lectures and the publication of information. The whole of these Rules have to be laid before the House, and therefore the argument used by my hon. and learned Friend that mere rules of procedure need not be laid before the House does not hold good in regard to this Act of 1911. I attach the greatest value to giving either side every opportunity that it desires of discussing the
Rules made under an Act of Parliament. It may be of slight consequence in regard to this Bill, but the principle is the same in every Bill, and I shall certainly divide the Committee.

Sir R. HORNE: I find it very difficult to follow my hon. Friend's argument. This is really the purely domestic procedure of these Industrial Courts and Courts of Inquiry as to the way in which they are to act and in which they may arrange for evidence being brought before them and the way in which witnesses may be accommodated and may be taken to suit the convenience of parties, and to say that the Court which is dealing with these matters is to have these simple rules of their ordinary procedure settled by the House of Commons seems to me quite out of the question.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Laid before Parliament.

Sir R. HORNE: That must mean that Parliament is not to ignore them. It must

mean that they are rules which ought to occupy the attention of Parliament. In my view Parliament would be wasting its time on questions of that kind. Parliament is very much occupied. It might be even more occupied in the future. Business is even congested at present and for hon. Members to take an interest in the domestic rules of a Court seems to be straining the matter of the privileges of Parliament to a degree which is quite unconstitutional, and with all the goodwill in the world towards my hon. Friend's general point of view as to the necessity of keeping Parliament supreme, I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do my utmost to give way to my right hon. Friend in every possible manner, but I regard this as a matter of principle and I am afraid I must go to a Division.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 73; Noes, 234.

Division No. 131.]
AYES.
[6.38 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke
Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York.)
Short, A. (Wednesbury)


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)
Sitch, C. H.


Atkey, A. R.
Hartshorn, V.
Smith, W. (Wellingborough)


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick
Haslam, Lewis
Spencer, George A.


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Hayday, A.
Spoor, B. G.


Bell, James (Ormskirk)
Hayward, Major Evan
Swan, J. E. C.


Benn, Capt. W. (Leith)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Bentinck, Lt.-Col. Lord H. Cavendish-
Hirst, G, H.
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Billing, Noel Pemberton
Hogge, J. M.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Holmes, J. Stanley
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)


Briant, F.
Jones, J. (Silvertown)
Thorne, Colonel W. (Plaistow)


Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander
Tootill, Robert


Carter, W. (Mansfield)
Kiley, James Daniel
Walsh, S. (Ince, Lancs.)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Oxford Univ.)
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Waterson, A. E.


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Maitland, Sir A. D. Steel-
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Devlin, Joseph
Marriott, John Arthur R.
White, Colonel G. D. (Southport)


Du Pre, Colonel W. B.
Murray, Hon. G. (St. Rollox)
Wignall, James


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Newbould, A. E.
Wilkie, Alexander


Finney, Samuel
Newman, Major J. (Finchley, M'ddx.)
Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)


Foxcrott, Captain C.
O'Grady, James
Wood, Maj. Mackenzie (Aberdeen, C.)


France, Gerald Ashburner
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Young, Lt-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Galbraith, Samuel
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Young, Robert (Newton, Lancs.)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Raffan, Peter Wilson



Graham, W. (Edinburgh)
Richardson, R. (Houghton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.


Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)
Royce, William Stapleton
G. Locker-Lampson and Mr. Rendall.


Grundy, T. W.




NOES.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr, Christopher
Bethell, Sir John Henry
Burn, T. H. (Belfast)


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Bigland, Alfred
Campbell, J. G. D.


Ainsworth, Captain C.
Birchall, Major J. D.
Campion, Colonel W. R.


Armitage, Robert
Bird, Alfred
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. F. W.
Blair, Major Reginald
Chadwick, R. Burton


Baird, John Lawrence
Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm, W.)


Baldwin, Stanley
Bowles, Colonel H. F.
Cheyne, Sir William Watson


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bridgeman, William Clive
Child, Brig.-General Sir Hill


Balfour, Sir Robert (Partick)
Bread, Thomas Tucker
Clough, R.


Barker, Major R.
Bruton, Sir J.
Coats, Sir Stuart


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Cohen, Major J. B. B.


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Buckley, Lieutenant-Colonel A.
Colfox, Major W. P.


Bell, Lt.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir W. J.
Colvin, Brig.-General R. B.


Benn, Com. Ian Hamilton (Greenwich)
Burden, Colonel Rowland
Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)


Bennett, T. J.
Burn, Colonel C. R. (Torquay)
Courthope, Major George- Loyd


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish University)
Jackson, Lt.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)
Purchase, H. G.


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Jodrell, N. P.
Rae, H. Norman


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Raeburn, Sir William


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr. N.


Davies, T. (Cirencester)
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)
Rees, Captain J. Tudor (Barnstaple)


Denniss, E. R. Bartley (Oldham)
Kellaway, Frederick George
Reid, D. D.


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander H.
Kelly, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Renwick, G.


Dixon, Captain H.
Kerr-Smiley, Major p.
Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)


Edge, Captain William
Kidd, James
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
King, commander Douglas
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Elliot, Captain W. E. (Lanark)
Knight, Captain E. A.
Robinson, T. Stretford, Lancs.)


Eyres-Monsell, Commander
Knights, Captain H.
Rodger, A. K.


Falcon, Captain M.
Lane-Fox, Major G. R.
Roundell, Lt.-Colonel R. F.


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar
Rowlands, James


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund


Fell, Sir Arthur
Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)
Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Lloyd, George Butler
Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)


Fitzroy, Capt, Hon. Edward A.
Long, Rt. Hon. Walter
Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur


Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue
Lonsdale, James R.
Sassoon, Sir Philip A. G. D.


Foreman, H.
Lorden, John William
Scott, A. M. (Glas., Bridgeton)


Forestier-Walker, L.
Lort-Williams, J.
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Lowe, Sir F. W.
Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone)


Ganzoni, Captain F. C.
M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Bosworlh)
Seager, Sir William


Gardiner, J. (Perth)
M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)
Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)


Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke)
M'Lean, Lt.-Col. C. W. W.(Brigg)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Cambridge)
Macmaster, Donald
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
McMicking, Major Gilbert
Smith, Harold (Warrington)


Gibbs, Colonel John Abraham
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Gilbert, James Daniel
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Mason, Robert
Stanley, Col. Hon. H. G. F. (Preston)


Glyn, Major R.
Meysey-Thompson, Lt.-Col. E. C.
Stanton, Charles Butt


Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir E. A.
Middlebrook, Sir William
Steel, Major S. Strang


Greame, Major P. Lloyd
Mitchell, William Lane-
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Green, A. (Derby)
Moles, Thomas
Stewart, Gershom


Green, J. F. (Leicester)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Greene, Lt.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.)
Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.
Sturrock, J. Leng-


Greer, Harry
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Sugden, Lieut. W. H.


Greig, Colonel James William
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Sutherland, Sir William


Griggs, Sir Peter
Morrison, H. (Salisbury)
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Mount, William Arthur
Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)


Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (Leie., Loughboro')
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Guinness, Lt.-Cot. Hn. W. E. (B. St. E)
Murray, John (Leeds, W.)
Townley, Maximilian G.


Hailwood, A.
Murray, William (Dumfries)
Wallace, J.


Hall, Lt.-Col. Sir Fred (Dulwich)
Nall, Major Joseph
Walters, Sir John Tudor


Hambro, Angus Valdemar
Neal, Arthur
Wardle, George J.


Harris, Sir Henry P. (Paddington, S.)
Nicholson, W. (Petersfield)
Warren, Sir Alfred H.


Hennessy, Major G.
Nield, Sir Herbert
Weigall, Lt.-Colonel W. E. G. A.


Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Weston, Colonel John W.


Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Oman, C. W. C.
Wheler, Colonel Granville C. H.


Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E.
Palmer, Brig.-General G. (Westbury)
Whitla, Sir William


Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel F.
Parker, James
Wigan, Brig.-General Sir Tyson


Hills, Major J. W. (Durham)
Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)
Willoughby, Lt.-Col. Hon. Claud


Hinds, John
Pearce, Sir William
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Sir Samuel J. G.
Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Hood, Joseph
pennefather, De Fonblanque
Wood, Major Hon. E. (Ripon)


Hope, Harry (Stirling)
Perkins, Waiter Frank
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, W.)


Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)
Pickering, Col. Emil W.
Woolcock, W. J. U.


Hope, Lieut.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Pinkham, Lt.-Colonel Charles
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)
Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Home, Sir Robert (Hillhead)
Pownall, Lt.-Colonel Assheton
Young, William (Perth and Kinross)


Howard, Major S. G.
Pratt, John William



Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. C
Prescott, Major W. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Capt.


Hurd, P. A.
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
F. Guest and Lord E. Talbot.


Question put, and agreed to.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Provisions as to Agricultural Disputes.)

In the case of a trade dispute in the industry of agriculture, the persons forming the standing Industrial Court shall be appointed, and all steps taken under this Act by the Minister of Labour acting in agreement with the President of the Board of Agriculture.—[Captain Falcon.]

Brought up, and read the first time.

Captain FALCON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
This Clause, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend (Mr. Cautley) is to make provision for disputes that arise in the
agricultural industry. The agricultural industry differs pretty widely from other industries and it has many special conditions which are not common to other industries. In cases of dispute, therefore, in the agricultural industry it is most important that those who are sitting on the Court should be conversant with that particular industry. At the present time the Board of Agriculture, I believe, does send down commissioners in cases where disputes arise, and this has proved to be successful. In the Bill as it stands now the Board of Agriculture is not able in any
way to act. It is most essential that the Board of Agriculture in an agricultural matter should represent both the agricultural labourer and the farmer, and that it should act in agreement with the Minister of Labour. This difficulty would be overcome if this Clause is adopted.

Sir R. HORNE: I cannot accept the Amendment in the shape in which it has been moved. I quite recognise that agriculture does stand in a separate position, seeing that there is a Government Department whose whole concern is that of agriculture. It is important that that Department, which necessarily has a very much greater knowledge of all the conditions of agriculture than any other Department can have, should take a permanent part in dealing with agricultural disputes. It would be entirely wrong if we neglected to take advantage of the special experience and knowledge which the Board of Agriculture have in that respect. While I cannot accept this Amendment, I should be prepared to agree to an Amendment in this form:
In the case of a trade dispute in the industry of agriculture steps to be taken under this

SCHEDULE.


Provisions continued in force.
Modifications.


S. 1 (Obligation to pay prescribed rates of wages)
As from the commencement of this Act a reference to an award of the Industrial Court shall, without prejudice to anything done before the commencement of this Act, be substituted for the reference to an award of the Interim Court of Arbitration.


Subs. (2) of s. 2 (Settlement of differences)
As from the commencement of this Act matters instead of being referred for settlement as provided in subs. (2) shall be referred to the Industrial Court.






The words "or as to whether any rate shall be substituted for the prescribed rate" shall cease to have effect, and the proviso to subs. 2 shall not apply.


S. 3 (Powers of inquiry)
…
…
…
—


S. 4 (Definition of prescribed rates of wages)
—


S. 5 (Legal proceedings)
…
…
…
—

Amendments made: In paragraph relating to Section 1 (Obligation to pay prescribed rates of wages), leave out the words "a reference to an award of the," and insert instead thereof the words
the power to substitute any enforceable rate for the prescribed rate shall cease, without prejudice, however, to the enforceability of any rate substituted for the prescribed rate, before the commencement of this Act, whether the substituted rate has or has not come into operation before that date, and without prejudice to the enforceability of any rate substituted for the prescribed rate by an award of the Industrial Court under Part III. of this Act."—[Sir R. Horne.]
Act by the Minister of Labour shall be taken in consultation with the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.

It is perfectly plain that any Minister of Labour would be very foolish if he did not take advantage of the special knowledge and experience of the Board of Agriculture when disputes arise in the agricultural industry. Accordingly, I would be prepared to accept an Amendment in the terms I have suggested if my hon. Friend would agree to modify his Amendment in consonance with what I have said.

Captain FALCON: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, and I beg leave to withdraw this Clause in order that a Clause may be moved in the terms, outlined by the right hon. Gentleman.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Provisions as to Agricultural Disputes.)

In the case of a trade dispute in the industry of agriculture steps to be taken under this Act by the Minister of Labour shall be taken in consultation with the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.—[Sir R. Horne.]

Brought up; read the first and second time, and added to the Bill.

In second column, relating to Section 4 (Definition of prescribed rates of wages), insert the words
As from the commencement of this Act a reference to the Industrial Court shall be substituted for any reference to the Interim Court of Arbitration."—[Sir R. Horne.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Schedule, as amended, be the Schedule of the Bill."

Mr. HENDERSON: I had intended to raise the position of women and girls on a previous Amendment. I have already
spoken of the delay that is being experienced in setting up trade boards for the trades in which women are very largely employed. I think the right hon. Gentleman would have to admit that there has been a certain amount, of delay. There is a good deal of apprehension that if that delay continues, and now that we have taken away the right to come to ask for an improved rate or a substituted rate, that many women and girls may be in a position of serious disadvantage. What we were trying to do by our last Amendment was to try to give them some protection and to make it possible for the Court in the interim period between the passing of this Bill and the setting up of trade boards for some of these trades to have an opportunity of establishing a minimum rate for women and girls. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman can see his way to insert some words on the Report stage whereby if a case of badly-paid women or girls was brought before the Court and the Court wanted to establish a minimum rate, then if it was only for the interim period until the Trade Board had been established in that particular trade, that minimum rate could be secured for this class of worker.

7.0 p.m.

Sir R. HORNE: I have great sympathy with the point which the right hon. Gentleman has raised, but I do not think the matter could be dealt with in the shape in which he puts it before the Committee. It is quite outside the scope of any Court set up under this Bill to establish any rate. Indeed, so clear is that, that ray right hon. Friend and I have upon many occasions been in consultation with regard to the passing of another Act through this House for establishing and fixing minimum rates for both males and females throughout the Kingdom. Accordingly, I cannot do anything in the shape in which he asks for it in this measure. In regard to the trade boards I agree that they have not been set up at anything like the speed that one would have desired. My right hon. Friend used the word "delay." I cannot admit delay, because the real fact is that that part of the Ministry of Labour which has been engaged upon this necessary and laudable object has been strained to the very uttermost in doing the work which they have succeeded in accomplishing. Nobody who has not actually taken part in it has any idea of the number of inquiries and negotiations which have to take place before a trade board
can be set up. You have to discover what ambit your trade board will cover, and that involves innumerable inquiries in all the various branches of a particular industry. I am endeavouring to expedite that in every way I can, but there is a matter which the House has been dealing with recently, namely, the question of expenditure. Unfortunately, a certain amount of expenditure will be necessary in regard to staff, and I am very reluctant to ask too much in that respect. I am endeavouring to hurry matters in every way that I can, and I have done more. Under the Interim Act there is a power which is being continued under the present measure, and which does enable me to encourage the increase of women's wages where any women are working at sweated rates in some industries for which trade boards have not already been set up. I think I have strained my powers to the uttermost in that respect, and I am prepared still to go on in that good work. I am afraid, however, that I cannot give my right hon. Friend any assurance that there is any means of doing anything which would interfere with the work of a trade board, or would overlap with its duties, under this measure. What I am clear about is that it could not possibly come within the scope of the present Bill.

Mr. HENDERSON: May I just call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to one point? Part of tins Act is temporary until the 30th September of next year. The Bill he refers to, which has had its First Beading, is only a Bill for the establishment of a Commission. That Commission will have to sit, and will have to take a vast amount of evidence, and I think he is a very sanguine man who would say that before many months are over the, minimum rates that that Bill is intended to secure will be established. What I was asking was, Could the right hon. Gentleman not do something in the interim between the passing of this Bill and the time when either a trade board will be set up or the General Minimum. Rate Act has been passed and a minimum rate established for this class of work?

The CHAIRMAN: That shows me that not only the Amendment but the subject of trade boards and the establishment of minimum rates do not come within the scope of this Bill.

Major HILLS: I should like to refer to one point in connection with the Wages Regulation Act. I have great sympathy with the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henderson), and I do think that some means ought to be found of bridging the gap between the time when this Bill passes and the time when the trade boards can be established for the general regulation of women's wages. I think it can be done under the Wages Regulation Act of 1918, if some tribunal of the character of the Interim Arbitration Tribunal would continue to legislate for women's wages up to the 30th of September next. Then we should not be outside the scope of this Act. All that we should be saying would be that, in the special case of women, the Courts established under this Bill should have the same powers as they had under the Wages Act of 1918. I would reinforce that by saying that what is happening now is simply that women are losing all that they won during the War, and the whole position is going right back. Women are starving—

The CHAIRMAN: That would not be in order on the Schedule.

Orders of the Day — TITLE.

A Bill to provide for the establishment of an Industrial Court and Courts of Inquiry in connection with Trade Disputes, and to continue for a limited period certain of the provisions of the Wages (Temporary Regulation) Act, 1918.

Amendment made: After the word "disputes" insert the words "and to make other provision for the settlement of such disputes."—[Sir R. Horne.]

Title, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported [with an amended Title]; as amended, considered.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 1.—(Constitution of Industrial Court.)

(1) For the purpose of the settlement of trade disputes in manner provided by this Act there shall be a standing Industrial Court, consisting of persons to be appointed by the Minister of Labour (in this Act referred to as "the Minister"), of whom some shall be independent persons, some shall be persons representing employers, and some shall be persons representing workmen.

(3) For the purpose of dealing with any matter which may be referred to it, the Court shall be constituted of such of the members of the Court as the President may, after consultation with the Court, direct.

Sir R. HORNE: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words "and in addition one or more women."
On Monday night a Motion was made in somewhat similar terms by my hon. Friend who sits behind me (Mr. A. Shaw), and I undertook to consider the matter carefully before the Report stage. He, however, went to a Division on the matter, and, as I understand Parliamentary procedure, that would absolve me from keeping that pledge. But it was a genuine offer on my part, although my hon. Friend seemed to think if was a dishonest one, or in some way one that he could not rely on. At any rate, I cannot explain to myself in any other way why he took the action he did take. Nevertheless, it makes no difference to the action I am taking now, and I accordingly propose that those words be there inserted.

Mr. A. SHAW: I desire to say that I am sure the House and the country are very grateful to my right hon. Friend for taking that course. Those of us who were concerned in the Debate two days ago had never any of us the slightest, doubt of his sympathy with the cause which we were then defending. The doubt, if he will allow me to explain, which was in our minds arose from the fact that we gathered from his observations that the most he could do on the Report stage would be to place women in the Courts in a purely advisory capacity as assessors. The point of our going into the Lobby was that we desired that women should be full members of the Court, with the prestige of full membership, and that they should be in close and constant touch with the whole development of the wages situation. I think that is an important point in the eyes of every person who has had experience of the complicated nature of wages questions, and of the manner in which one question reacts on another. I desire personally to thank my right hon. Friend for his action, and to repeat that, in anything which happened, not one of us ever had a shadow of doubt of his own personal sympathy with the cause of just remuneration for women.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir R. HORNE: I beg to move, in Subsection (3), to leave out the words "after consultation with the Court."
The circumstances under which I make this proposal are these. As this Subsection was originally drawn, the constitution of the Court was left to the action of the Minister. It was represented to me by an hon. Member that there was too much power in the hands of the Minister, and that the Court seemed to be to far too great an extent the mere creature of the Minister. I recognised and appreciated the force of that comment, and, in order that the Court might have complete independence and might be free from any reflection of that kind, I accepted an Amendment to the effect that the Court should be constituted of such of the members of the Court as the President might, after consultation with the Court, direct. On thinking the matter over and discussing it with my advisers, we came to the conclusion that the words "after consultation with the Court" would be a source of very great embarrassment and difficulty, for the reason that this Court will no doubt sit, as the Interim Court of Arbitration has frequently sat, in different divisions in different parts of the country. In the regulation of business from day to day it would clearly be quite impossible for the President to have the opportunity of consulting all the members of his Court, when some were in different parts of the country, and accordingly I venture to recommend to the House that the words "after consultation with the Court" be omitted. Then the constitution of the Court will be decided by the President, who, I think, in practically all Courts with which I have any acquaintance, is the person who really is responsible for the constitution of any Court or of its different divisions.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 2.—(Reference of Disputes to Industrial Court or to Arbitration.)

(2) Where a trade dispute exists or is apprehended, the Minister may, if he thinks fit and if both parties consent, either—

(a) refer the matter for settlement to the Industrial Court; or
(b) refer the matter for settlement to the arbitration of one or more persons appointed by him; or
(c) refer the matter for settlement to a board of arbitration consisting of one or more persons nominated by or on behalf of the employers concerned and an equal number of persons nominated by or on behalf of the workmen concerned, and an independent chairman nominated by the Minister:
Provided that if there are existing in any trade or industry any arrangements for settlement by conciliation or arbitration of disputes in such trade or industry, or any branch thereof, made in pursuance of an agreement between organisations of employers and organisations of workmen representative respectively of substantial proportions of the employers and workmen engaged in that trade or industry, the Minister shall not, unless with the consent of both parties to the dispute, and unless and until there has been a failure to obtain a settlement by means of those arrangements, refer the matter for settlement or advice in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Section.
(3) The Minister may refer to the Industrial Court for advice any matter relating to or arising out of a trade dispute, or trade disputes in general or trade disputes of any class, or any other matter which in his opinion ought to be so referred.

Sir R. HORNE: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), after the word "Minister" ["nominated by the Minster"] to insert the words
For the purpose of facilitating the nomination of persons to act as members of a board of arbitration, the Minister of Labour shall constitute panels of persons appearing to him suitable so to act, and women shall be included in the panels.
This Amendment is one which I move in response to a very reasonable request made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Widnes (Mr. Henderson). He pointed out the service which such panels had done under the Conciliation Act, and I am very glad to meet him by putting this definite arrangement into the present measure.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: At the end of Sub-section (3), insert the words:
Provided that if there are existing in any trade or industry any arrangements for settlement by conciliation or arbitration of disputes in such trade or industry, or any branch thereof, made in pursuance of an agreement between organisations of employers and organisations of workmen representative respectively of substantial proportions of the employers and workmen engaged in that trade or industry, the Minister shall not, unless with the consent of
both parties to the dispute, and unless and until there has been a failure to obtain a settlement by means of those arrangements, refer the matter for settlement or advice in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Section."—[Sir R. Horne.]

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 3.—(Procedure of Industrial Court and on Arbitrations.)

1. The Minister may make, or authorise the Industrial Court to make, Rules regulating the procedure of that Court, and those Rules may, amongst other things, provide for references in certain cases to a single member of the Court, and provide for enabling the Court to sit in two or more divisions, and to sit with assessors, for enabling the Court or any division of the Court to act notwithstanding any vacancy in their number, and for enabling questions as to the interpretation of any award to be settled without any fresh report or reference.

Sir R. HORNE: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "assessors" ["to sit with assessors"], to insert the words "who may be men or women."
This is to carry out the previous proposal which I have made with regard to women.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 4.—(Inquiry into Trade Disputes.)

(4) The Minister may make Rules regulating the procedure of any Court of Inquiry, including Rules as to summoning of witnesses, quorum, and the appointment of committees.
(5) A Court of Inquiry may, if and to such extent as may be authorised by Rules made under this Section, by Order require any person who appears to the Court to have any knowledge of the subject-matter of the inquiry to furnish, in writing or otherwise, such particulars in relation thereto as the Court may require, and, where necessary, to attend before the Court and give evidence on oath, and the Court may administer or authorise any person to administer an oath for that purpose.

Sir R. HORNE: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (4), to insert the words
and enabling the Court to call for such documents as the Court may determine to be relevant to the subject-matter of the inquiry.
In the course of the discussion in Committee two nights ago we found it impossible to arrange that Orders should be given for the production of documents, because that might involve the overloading of the Court with many documents which might be wholly irrelevant to the subject. At that time I gave a pledge that I would devise a form of words against the Report stage which might meet the wishes of the Committee. These are the words, which I now propose. I think they will entirely meet the whole object which the various
Members who spoke desired should be secured in the way of the production of documents.

Mr. W. THORNE: Before that is put, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether, in the event of any witness being subæpened and documents called for, and the official of the organisation refusing to supply those documents, he will be in any way penalised for refusing?

Sir R. HORNE: I think the hon. Member will recall that, on the motion of hon. Members upon the benches where he sits, the compulsory Clause with regard to that matter was omitted. I gave way upon that matter to the opinion of the Labour benches; so I am afraid he cannot complain now if he does not find compulsion included.

Mr. THORNE: Do I understand that witnesses can be subpæened and documents called for? In that event, will a man be penalised if he refuses to come?

Sir R. HORNE: No, he cannot be—on the desire of my hon. Friends on the Labour benches.

Mr. THORNE: That is all right, then.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 11.—(Provision as to Agricultural Disputes.)

In the case of a. trade dispute in the industry of agriculture steps to be taken under this Act by the Minister of Labour shall be taken in consultation with the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.
Amendment made: Leave out the word "consultation," and insert instead thereof the word "conjunction."—[Mr. Wardle.]

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 12.—(Application to Scotland and Ireland.)

In the application of this Act to Scotland a reference to an oversman shall be substituted for any reference to an umpire.

Amendments made: At the end of the Clause, insert the words
and a reference to the Board of Agriculture for Scotland shall be substituted for any reference to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.

After the words last inserted, add
(2) In the application of this Act to Ireland, reference to the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland shall be substituted for any reference to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries."—[Mr. Wardle.]

Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 206.]

AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (COUNCILS, ETC.) [EXPENSES].

Considered in Committee.

[SIR E. CORNWALL, Deputy-Chairman, in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the expenses of any council, committee, or sub-committee established, or of any fishery meeting convened, under any Act of the present Session, to provide for the constitution of councils and committees in connection with agriculture and fisheries, and to amend the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries Acts, 1889 to 1909."[Sir A. Boscawen.]

Sir D. MACLEAN: I have made inquiries at the Vote Office, and have been unable to obtain the White Paper either with regard to the Resolution now before the Committee or, I may add for the convenience of my hon. Friend opposite (Sir A. Boscawen), the next Order on the Paper.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir A. Boscawen): May I say that I obtained the White Paper with reference to the Resolution for which I am responsible from the Vote Office an hour and a half ago?

Sir D. MACLEAN: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman obtained it from the Vote Office or not, but two hon. Friends of mine have been there and they could not get one. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will go on to explain the Vote.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I can assure my right hon. Friend that I am very sorry he was unable to obtain the White Paper. I took special precautions to have it printed and circulated to-day, and I went to the Vote Office about an hour and a half ago and asked for it, and they gave it to me. I cannot understand why, if there was one available for me, there was not one available for other people. Perhaps it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I explain what is proposed in this Resolution. The Bill to which the House gave a Second Reading yesterday, without a division, proposes to set up a Council of Agriculture for England, another for Wales, an Advisory Committee for England and Wales, and also County Agricultural Authorities for each county. It is provided that the expenses incurred under the Act will be paid for by monies provided by Parliament. I have prepared a White Paper which shows,
giving an outside estimate, what the cost is likely to be. First of all, the expenses of the Councils of Agriculture and the Committee for Agriculture, including the travelling subsistence of the members, will cost together, as an outside estimate, allowing for a larger number of meetings in a year than we anticipate will be the case, £7,000. In addition to that, we make a special provision that, on the Allotments and Small Holdings Committee of the County Agricultural Authority, the travelling expenses and subsistence allowances of members representing allotment societies and small holders shall be paid. We are very anxious that on the Small Holdings Committee we may have actual, living small holders, and it is quite clear that they cannot attend unless their expenses are paid. We estimate that the cost of that, at the outside figure, will be £2,000.
Then there is the Clause which authorises the County Agricultural Committees to take steps in the development of rural industries and social life in the villages. It is anticipated that the only expense incurred there might be the appointment of an organiser in the county. I do not think it is in the least likely that every county will appoint an organiser, but I have estimated on the basis that every county will. If that is so, the total cost will be £30,000. Therefore, in the White Paper I have put in an estimate—although the Committee will realise it is quite impossible to make tin absolutely definite or accurate estimate at this stage —of £40,000. I should like to add that whatever expense is incurred will be under the control of the Treasury, and will come under the review of Parliament each year on the Vote for the Estimate for the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. There will be no Supplementary Estimate for this year, as we do not anticipate that these new bodies will be set up in time to incur any expenditure in the current financial year. I think that gives all the information I have. This figure, which I have named, is the outside figure. I hope that the Committee, in view of the fact that the House passed the Second Reading of the Bill without a Division yesterday, will agree to the Financial Resolution.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for the statement he has made, which I think quite sufficiently covers the Resolution before the Com-
mittee. As to the complaint which I have just made, that I was unable to get a White Paper at the Vote Office, the Paper was there, but a mistake was made by the official. It has now been rectified, and copies have been found.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

COUNTY COURT JUDGES.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir E. CORNWALL in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient to make further provisions out of the Consolidated Fund, and out of moneys provided by Parliament, with respect to the Retirement and Pensions of County Court Judges and the employment of Deputy Judges under any Act of the present Session relating thereto."—[Sir G. Hewart.]

Sir D. MACLEAN: Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend will favour us with a short explanation?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir G. Hewart): I shall be happy to do so, as I think my right hon. Friend was not present when the matter was fully explained before. The Bill proposes a new scheme of pensions for County Court judges according to the number of years which they have served.

Sir D. MACLEAN: It may save the time of my right hon. Friend and that of the Committee if he will just explain the paragraph in which it is stated that there will not be any net increase in cost.

Sir G. HEWART: As matters now stand, under the Act of 1888, the Treasury, upon the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor pay certain pensions to County Court judges who retire under that Act. It is now contemplated that County Court judges may retire otherwise than under those provisions, and if they do they may receive a pension according to the scale which is set out in the Schedule to the Bill. It is calculated that under the new scheme no further money will be required than that which is already expended under the existing provisions on that account. I may add a reference to a matter raised not by my right hon. Friend, but by my hon. Friend who is not now present, with regard to the payment of deputies. He suggested in the
course of the Second Reading Debate that there might be a difficulty because as he suspected some County Court judges might be tempted under the new arrangement, whereby the payment of a deputy comes not from the pocket of the County Court judge but from the Treasury, to prolong his absence unduly. I never thought that that would be likely to occur, but if my hon. Friend refers to Section 18 of the Act of 1888, it is there made clear that without the expressed consent of the Lord Chancellor a County Court judge may not be absent for a period exceeding fourteen days.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I thank my right hon. Friend and hope that the Committee and the public will take note that it is possible to effect a legal reform without an additional charge to the taxpayer.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

LAND VALUES (SELECT COM- MITTEE).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Beck be added to the Select Committee on Land Values."—[Colonel Gibbs.]

Sir D. MACLEAN: I take this opportunity of expressing the regret of everybody in the House at the occasion, probably, of the addition of the hon. Member to this Committee. That is the death of Sir Thomas Whittaker, for very many years an honoured and most respected member of this House. His death is a loss to the House and a loss to the country. He was a man of strong and independent character, and the long record of his services to the public inside this House and outside it is one which will not be forgotten by those who had the honour and privilege of knowing him.

The remaining Orders wore read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five minutes before Eight o'clock.